Martin v. Gibbons

• Decision Date: 20 January 1914
• Docket Number: 5154.
• Citation: 80 S.E. 522,14 Ga.App. 136
• Parties: MARTIN v. GIBBONS.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

80 S.E. 522

14 Ga.App. 136

MARTIN v. GIBBONS.

No. 5154.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

January 20, 1914

Syllabus by the Court.

Instructions to a jury, even if not in all respects correct, afford no cause for a new trial when they are manifestly harmless to the complaining party.

The court having fully charged the jury the law applicable to the issues involved, it was not error to fail to charge them more fully as to the burden of proof, in the absence of a timely written request to do so.

There was sufficient evidence to warrant the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and there is nothing in the record to show that he abused his discretion in refusing a new trial.

Error from City Court, Floyd County; J. H. Reece, Judge.

Action by R. B. Martin against W. S. Gibbons, Jr. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

J. J Barge, of Atlanta, and Harris & Harris, of Rome, for plaintiff in error.

Eubanks & Mebane, of Rome, for defendant in error.

ROAN J.

Martin brought suit against Gibbons, alleging an indebtedness of $100, besides protest fees, on a certain check, and of $125 besides interest and attorney's fees, on a note of the same date, both signed by the defendant and made payable to the plaintiff. The defendant in his answer denied that he was indebted to plaintiff on the check and note, for the following reasons: The said note and check were given for the purchase money of one seven-passenger Ford automobile complete, except the wheels, body, and magneto; that the plaintiff represented to him that every part of the machine was being sold to him except the parts mentioned; that the machine was shipped to him to Rome, Ga., and that upon immediate examination of the same upon its arrival he found that various parts of the machine, other than those excepted were missing, and that the representations of the plaintiff were false; that without the missing parts the machine was absolutely worthless to the defendant, and he immediately notified the plaintiff to this effect, and tendered the machine back to him; that it was the false and fraudulent representations of the plaintiff that caused him to make said purchase and to give the note and check sued on; that the consideration for said note and check had totally failed. Upon these issues the jury tried the case and returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

1. The plaintiff in error, in addition to the general grounds, set out in his motion for new trial certain excerpts from the charge of the court, which he alleges are erroneous, and to which he excepts. The first portion of the charge to which he excepts is as follows: "I charge you that, if the plaintiff offered to furnish certain material to the defendant, and failed to furnish all the material he agreed to furnish, these different parts you have heard described in the testimony and pleadings, along with this pile of stuff, I don't know what it is, but if he failed to furnish the...