Pollard v. State
| Decision Date | 11 May 1906 |
| Citation | 54 S.E. 171,125 Ga. 270 |
| Parties | POLLARD. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
"An amendment to a motion for a new trial, which has upon it an entry to the effect that it was 'allowed' by the judge, with nothing else to indicate an approval of its grounds, is not sufficiently verified to authorize this court to deal with the assignments of error therein." Sterling v. Unity Cotton Mills, 45 S. E. 975, 119 Ga. 173, and citations; Williams v. State, 48 S. E. 149, 120 Ga. 488, and citations; Bradley v. State, 48 S. E. 904, 121 Ga. 162.
The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and no sufficient reason appears for reversing the judgment.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Brooks County; R. G. Mitchell, Judge.
Ed Pollard was convicted of crime, and brings error. Affirmed.
Stanley S. Bennet, for plaintiff in error.
W. E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., for the State.
COBB, P. J. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drake v. State
...of fact therein can not be considered. Gamble v. State, 113 Ga. 701, 39 S.E. 301; Dunn v. State, 116 Ga. 515, 42 S.E. 772; Pollard v. State, 125 Ga. 270, 54 S.E. 171. However, the first special ground complains of the failure to charge on Code §§ 26-1009 and 26-1010, involuntary manslaughte......