Hubbard v. State, 26794.

• Decision Date: 26 April 1938
• Docket Number: No. 26794.,26794.
• Citation: 197 S.E. 64,57 Ga.App. 856
• Parties: HUBBARD. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

57 Ga.App. 856

197 S.E. 64

HUBBARD.

v.STATE.

No. 26794.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 1.

April 26, 1938.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The newly discovered evidence is not now available as a cause for a new trial, for it does not appear that the evidence itself is newly discovered, but it merely appears that certain witnesses, by whom the facts can be proved, were unknown until after the trial.

2. "Newly discovered evidence that another person has admitted that he and certain others committed the offense, is no cause for a new trial, inasmuch as the admissions would not be competent evidence in behalf of the accused were a new trial ordered." Briscoe & Mathis v. State, 95 Ga. 496, 20 S.E. 211.

3. The evidence warrants the verdict.

Error from Superior Court, Taliaferro County; C. J. Perryman, Judge.

Buck Hubbard was convicted of manufacturing spirituous liquor, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

J. A. Mitchell, of Crawfordville, for plaintiff in error.

J. Cecil Davis, Sol. Gen, of Warrenton, for the State.

MACINTYRE, Judge.

The defendant, Buck Hubbard, and V. A. Armor were indicted for the manufacturing of spirituous liquor in Taliaferro county. The sheriff of Taliaferro county testified: "I have been knowing Mr. Hubbard [the defendant] about a year before that [referring to the time that he says he saw him at the still in question]. I was in ten foot of him when he was toting that mash [to the still]. I was in a gully and he passed backwards and forwards in ten feet of me. I positively identify him as the man." The witness further testified that the mash "was fermented and ready to run." The sheriff of Wilkes county, who was also at the raid, while not being positive as to the identification of the defendant, said that the man was about "the same size as and similar to Hubbard. We caught Vernon Armor out there that day and he said it was Buck Hubbard." The defendant introduced his codefendant, Armor, who testified that the defendant was not present on the occasion, but that the other man who was present was a man by the name of Gordon Combs. The defendant denied his guilt, and said that he was not present on this occasion. The jury found the defendant guilty. It thus appears that the jury resolved this issue of fact in favor of the State and against the defendant.

The defendant, in his motion for new trial, in addition to the general grounds, relied on what he terms newly discovered evidence, and introduced the affidavits of three additional persons who undertake to swear that Gordon Combs told them that he, Gordon Combs, was the man at the still and not Hubbard. The defendant also introduced three other affidavits tending to support the alibi. It thus appears that the newly discovered evidence is not now available as a cause for a new...