Lemming v. State, 7 S.E.2d 42 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940). · Go Syfert
Search
Lemming v. State, 7 S.E.2d 42 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events across 1 distinct court.
How cited ↗
Cited for
q1 “there are literally hundreds of decisions which hold that newly discovered evidence which is merely impeaching in its character is not a good ground for a new trial.”0 citing cases1 citing court quotes it · Neutral (inherited from the case)
    Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
    Lemming
    v.
    the State
    27982..
    Court of Appeals of Georgia.
    Jan 31, 1940.
    Published opinion
    7 S.E.2d 42
    1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 183
    Kelly cG Hides, Lanham cG Parker, for plaintiff in error., Lamar Camp, solicitor, Tom Willingham, contra.
    Guerry, Broyles, MacIntyre.
    Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
    Guerry, J.

    1. The alleged newly discovered evidence tended only to impeach the State’s witness. There are literally hundreds of decisions which hold that newly discovered evidence which is merely impeaching in its character is not a good ground for a new trial.

    •2. A'juror whose brother married the sister of the prosecutor’s wife did not thereby become related to the prosecutor so as to be disqualified. The brother became related to his wife’s relatives. The juror did not become so related. As was s'aid by Judge Bleckley in Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Roberts, 91 Ga. 513, 517 (18 S. E. 315):

    “The groom and bride each comes within The circle of the other’s kin; But kin and kin are still no more Related than they were before.”

    See also Wilburn v. State, 141 Ga. 510 (2) (81 S. E. 444).

    3. The evidence supported the verdict. The remaining grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.

    Judgment affirmed.

    Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.