Hill v. State

• Decision Date: 27 October 1900
• Citation: 37 S.E. 441,112 Ga. 32,112 Ga. 400
• Parties: HILL. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

112 Ga. 32

112 Ga. 400

37 S.E. 441

HILL.

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 27, 1900.

CRIMINAL LAW—APPEAL—NEW TRIAL—ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.

1. A motion for a new trial in a criminal case, based on the general grounds that the verdict complained of was contrary to law and evidence, does not raise any question as to the constitutionality of an act of the general assembly. Railway Co. v. Hardin, 35 S. E. 681, 110 Ga. 433.

2. When a motion for a new trial fails to make special assignments of error, the same cannot be supplied in a bill of exceptions alleging error in overruling such motion. Clay v. Smith, 33 S. E. 963, 108 Ga. 189; Newman v. Day, 34 S. E. 167, 108 Ga. 813.

3. The evidence not only warranted, but demanded, the verdict.

On Rehearing.

1. The decision of this court in the case of Embry v. State, 35 S. E. 116, 109 Ga. 61, in so far as it deals with the sufficiency of a general assignment that a verdict is "contrary to law" to raise a question as to the constitutionality of a statute, is not sound; and, not being binding as authority, because not rendered by a unanimous bench, will not be followed.

2. No good cause for granting a rehearing appears.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Monroe count E. J. Reagan, Judge.

Charles Hill was convicted of crime, and brings error. Affirmed.

Persons & Persons, for plaintiff in error.

O. H. B. Bloodworth, Sol. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

(Dec. 19, 1900.)

FISH, J. On October 27th, during the present term, this court passed upon a bill of exceptions which had been sued out by Hill to review a judgment of the superior court of Monroe county denying him a new trial upon an indictment charging him with the offense of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor. See 112 Ga. 32, and supra. Among other things, it was held that: "A motion for a new trial in a criminal case, based on the general grounds that the verdict complained of was contrary to law and evidence, does not raise any question as to the constitutionality of an act of the general assembly." After our judgment had been announced, the plaintiff in error filed an application for a rehearing, basing the same upon the decision of this court in the case of Embry v. State, 109 Ga. 61, 35 S. E. 116, in which it was held that, "where one was indicted and tried for a violation of the provisions of * * * anunconstitutional local statute, a verdict of guilty was unauthorized by law; and a motion for a new trial, alleging that it was contrary to law, should have been sustained." In the later case of Railway Co. v. Hardin, 110 Ga. 433, 35 S. E. 681, it was decided that "a motion for a new trial containing a ground alleging that the verdict was contrary to law does not properly raise here any question upon the constitutionality" of a statute. That this is the better view of the matter will, we think, clearly appear from the opinion of Mr. Justice Cobb in the case last cited. See, also, in this connection, Roberts v. Keeler (Ga.) 36 S. E. 617. The ruling in Embry's Case, not being sound,...