Holliman v. State

• Decision Date: 11 November 1930
• Docket Number: No. 20878.,20878.
• Citation: 155 S.E. 906,42 Ga.App. 322
• Parties: HOLLIMAN. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

42 Ga.App. 322

155 S.E. 906

HOLLIMAN.

v.STATE.

No. 20878.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 1.

Nov. 11, 1930.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1930.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, McDuffie County; C. J. Terryman, Judge.

S. T. Holliman brings error.

Affirmed.

J. B. & T. R. Burnside, of Thomson, for plaintiff in error.

M. L. Felts, Sol. Gen., of Warrenton, for the State.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

BLOODWORTH, J.

1. Special grounds 1 and 2 of the motion for a new trial, not having been unqualifiedly approved by the trial judge, cannot be considered by this court. Cronic v. State, 40 Ga. App. 444 (2), 445 (2), 150 S. E. 429, and citations.

2. The third special ground of the motion alleges that the court erred in admitting, over the objection of the movant, the following material evidence: "I later found out that that was a bale of cotton left there by Mr. Holliman. I found out it went there in his name. I got that information from Mr. Cook." The objection urged to the admission of the evidence was that "it was irrelevant and further that it was hearsay." The objection that evidence "was irrelevant" is too general to be considered. Herndon v. State, 38 Ga. App. 117 (4), 119(4), 142 S. E. 695, and citations. Conceding that the evidence was hearsay, its admission does not require a re-versal of the judgment, since the defendant admitted that he left the cotton where it was found, and there is other evidence establishing this fact.

3. The fourth special ground of the motion is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence. A new trial should not be granted on this ground. Granting that the alleged newly discovered evidence is all true, such evidence, if submitted to the jury, is not of such a character as that it would probably produce a different verdict upon another trial.

4. The verdict has the approval of the trial judge, and we cannot say that there is no evidence to support it.

Judgment affirmed.

BROYLES, C. J., and LUKE, J., concur.