Rowland v. State

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: LUKE, J.
• Citation: Rowland v. State, 38 Ga.App. 664, 145 S.E. 100 (Ga. App. 1928)
• Decision Date: 02 October 1928
• Docket Number: 19085.
• Parties: ROWLAND v. STATE.

145 S.E. 100

38 Ga.App. 664

ROWLAND v. STATE.

No. 19085.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

October 2, 1928

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Grounds of motion for new trial cannot be considered, where they are not approved by trial judge.

Where state made counter showing to newly discovered evidence that foreman of jury had stated that if he ever got a chance at defendant "he would put him just as far in the pen as he could," Court of Appeals could not say that trial judge abused his discretion in overruling ground of motion for new trial.

Error from Superior Court, Jeff Davis County; J. H. Thomas, Judge.

Joe Rowland was convicted of violating the Prohibition Law, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Wm. B Kent, of Alamo, for plaintiff in error.

W. B Gibbs, Sol. Gen., of Jesup, for the State.

Syllabus OPINION.

LUKE J.

1. There was uncontradicted evidence in this case that four two-gallon jugs of whisky were found in a hole under the defendant's residence, and, under all the facts of the case, the jury were authorized to find against the defendant's contention that the whisky was "planted," and this court cannot say that the trial judge erred in overruling the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

2. Grounds 1 and 3 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial cannot be considered, for the reason that they are not approved by the trial judge.

3. The state having made a counter showing to the alleged newly discovered evidence that the foreman of the jury trying the case had stated that, if he ever got a chance at the defendant, "he would put him just as far in the pen as he could," this court cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling special ground 2 of the motion for a new trial. Hayes v. State, 16 Ga.App 334 (1), 85 S.E. 253; Crumley v. State, 23 Ga.App 312 (1), 98 S.E. 230; Bradford v. Brand, 132 Ga. 642 (1), 64...