Atlanta Consol. Street Ry. Co. v. Bigham, 30 S.E. 934 (Ga. 1898). · Go Syfert
Atlanta Consol. Street Ry. Co. v. Bigham, 30 S.E. 934 (Ga. 1898). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Atlanta Consolidated Street Railway Co.
v.
Bigham
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Jun 8, 1898.
Published opinion
30 S.E. 934
1898 Ga. LEXIS 619
Goodwin, Westmoreland & Hallman, for -plaintiff in error., James L. Hey, contra.
Cobb.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
Cobb, J.

1. Objections to evidence can not be considered by this court,, unless the record shows that objection to the same was made at the-trial, and what that objection was.

2. The general rule as to the probative value of positive and negative testimony is subject to the qualification that other things are equal and the Witnesses are of equal credibility. It follows that a request to charge which did not embody this qualification was properly re- ■ fused. See Humphries v. State, 100 Ga. 260.

3. The evidence warranted the verdict. Other requests to charge than the one dealt with above were covered by the general charge; and there was no error in denying a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.