Housing Authority of Atlanta v. Green, 67286
| Decision Date | 05 December 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 67286,67286 |
| Parties | HOUSING AUTHORITY OF ATLANTA v. GREEN. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Alfred J. Turk III, Atlanta, for appellant.
Frank P. Samford III, Decatur, for appellee.
This case made its first appearance in this court in Green v. Housing Auth. of Atlanta, 164 Ga.App. 205, 296 S.E.2d 758 (1982), and this court reversed the grant of a directed verdict in favor of the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority brings this appeal following the retrial and contends the trial court erred in failing to grant its motion for a new trial based on the general grounds, in charging the jury when it used the term "forfeiture" and in permitting testimony as to appellee's good character.
1. In the previous appeal this court held it was error to direct a verdict in favor of the Housing Authority because there was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Green and his wife threatened the roofing contractors. As in the previous case, there was a great difference in the evidence as to this issue presented by the parties; the Housing Authority contends that Green and his wife threatened to shoot the roofers if they did not come down off the roof and Green claims he asked the roofers to come down to discuss the absence of tenants from the work force but had not made threats to harm them. Mrs. Green also denied threatening to shoot the roofers. Once again, we hold that a jury question was raised and the trial court did not err in failing to grant the Housing Authority's motion based on the general grounds. Whether or not any threats were made or constituted a violation of the lease was a jury question and the trial court charged the jury accordingly. Credibility of the witnesses is purely a matter for jury resolution. Redd v. State, 154 Ga.App. 373, 268 S.E.2d 423 (1980).
2. The trial court charged the jury:
Considering this portion of the charge as a whole, we find no fault with the court's use of the word "forfeiture" as the jury is informed that a forfeiture would result only as the result of a serious violation of the provisions of the lease. The language of the charge is taken from Pritchett v. King, 56 Ga.App. 788, 790, 194 S.E. 44 (1937) and is recognition of the long standing rule that forfeitures...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weaver v. Ross
... ... appellant doctor, another doctor, and a hospital authority. The latter two defendants reached a settlement with ... 834, 836, 52 S.E.2d 567. See also Housing Auth. of Atlanta v. Green, 169 Ga.App. 211(3), 312 S.E.2d ... ...
-
Messmore v. Roth
...etc. Contractors, 156 Ga.App. 425, 437-438(4), 274 S.E.2d 786 (1980). Contrary to appellee's argument, Housing Auth. of Atlanta v. Green, 169 Ga.App. 211, 312 S.E.2d 196 (1983), does not dictate a different result. That case stated the rule in Georgia with regard to the admissibility of evi......
-
Beam v. Kingsley
...issue under the pleadings or where there is evidence that the party threatened to commit a crime. Housing Auth. of Atlanta v. Green, 169 Ga.App. 211, 212(3), 312 S.E.2d 196 (1983). Neither exception exists in this case. Beam admitted that she had been drinking prior to the accident. The rea......
-
Ginsberg v. Termotto
...such character and renders necessary or proper the investigation of such conduct." OCGA § 24-2-2. See Housing Auth. of Atlanta v. Green, 169 Ga.App. 211, 212, 312 S.E.2d 196 (1983). Although the appellant contended at trial that the appellee was motivated by a desire for revenge due to the ......