special assignment error in Georgia

1961Ward v. Nance, 102 Ga. App. 201 (9) ( 115 SE2d 781 ).

1961Ward v. Nance, 102 Ga. App. 201 (9) ( 115 SE2d 781 ).

1959According to Shipley v. Eiswald, 54 Ga. 520 (1), the question of the size of the verdict not having been properly raised by motion for new trial, can not be brought to this court’s attention by bill of exceptions.

1959According to Shipley v. Eiswald, 54 Ga. 520 (1), the question of the size of the verdict not having been properly raised by motion for new trial, can not be brought to this court's attention by bill of exceptions.

1959Co., 86 Ga. App. 152 ( 71 S. E. 2d 434 ), that a general assignment alleges, without specifically designating the reason for the conclusion that the verdict is contrary to law or without evidence to support it, while a special assignment of error points out the reasons for the assertion that the verdict is contrary to law or not supported by evidence.

1959Co., 86 Ga. App. 152 ( 71 S. E. 2d 434 ), that a general assignment alleges, without specifically designating the reason for the conclusion that the verdict is contrary to law or without evidence to support it, while a special assignment of error points out the reasons for the assertion that the verdict is contrary to law or not supported by evidence.

1946“In the absence of a proper and pertinent written request for instructions thereon, the court is not bound to give in charge the law of a theory of the case arising solely from the statement of the accused.” Hardin v. State, 107 Ga. 718 ( 33 S. E. 700 ) ; Smith v. State, 117 Ga. 259 ( 43 S. E. 703 ) ; Jackson v. State, 192 Ga. 373, 374 ( 15 S. E. 2d, 484 ).

1946“In the absence of a proper and pertinent written request for instructions thereon, the court is not bound to give in charge the law of a theory of the case arising solely from the statement of the accused.” Hardin v. State, 107 Ga. 718 ( 33 S. E. 700 ) ; Smith v. State, 117 Ga. 259 ( 43 S. E. 703 ) ; Jackson v. State, 192 Ga. 373, 374 ( 15 S. E. 2d, 484 ).

1946“In the absence of a proper and pertinent written request for instructions thereon, the court is not bound to give in charge the law of a theory of the case arising solely from the statement of the accused.” Hardin v. State, 107 Ga. 718 ( 33 S. E. 700 ) ; Smith v. State, 117 Ga. 259 ( 43 S. E. 703 ) ; Jackson v. State, 192 Ga. 373, 374 ( 15 S. E. 2d, 484 ).

1946“In the absence of a proper and pertinent written request for instructions thereon, the court is not bound to give in charge the law of a theory of the case arising solely from the statement of the accused.” Hardin v. State, 107 Ga. 718 ( 33 S. E. 700 ) ; Smith v. State, 117 Ga. 259 ( 43 S. E. 703 ) ; Jackson v. State, 192 Ga. 373, 374 ( 15 S. E. 2d, 484 ).

1944Shaw v. Jones, 133 Ga. 446 (9) (66 8.

1944If there be any conflict between this ruling and that of Lasseter v. State, 17 Ga. App. 323 ( 86 S. E. 743 ), the Lasseter ease is herewith reviewed and overruled. *822 The verdict was a general one of “guilty,” and a special assignment of error in the petition for certiorari complains of a charge by the judge in which he construed the three counts of the accusation as charging only one offense, counsel for the accused contending that each count charged a separate offense, and that two of the counts were not supported by any evidence, and that the charge of the court mislead the jury into find

1944If there be any conflict between this ruling and that of Lasseter v. State, 17 Ga. App. 323 ( 86 S. E. 743 ), the Lasseter ease is herewith reviewed and overruled. *822 The verdict was a general one of “guilty,” and a special assignment of error in the petition for certiorari complains of a charge by the judge in which he construed the three counts of the accusation as charging only one offense, counsel for the accused contending that each count charged a separate offense, and that two of the counts were not supported by any evidence, and that the charge of the court mislead the jury into find

1943If we were allowed to treat the assignments of error as covering the exceptions, such exceptions were involved under the rulings in Fuqua v. Hadden, 192 Ga. 654 ( 16 S. E. 2d, 728 ), and O’Rear v. Lamb, 194 Ga. 455 ( 22 S. E. 2d, 74 ).

1943If we were allowed to treat the assignments of error as covering the exceptions, such exceptions were involved under the rulings in Fuqua v. Hadden, 192 Ga. 654 ( 16 S. E. 2d, 728 ), and O’Rear v. Lamb, 194 Ga. 455 ( 22 S. E. 2d, 74 ).

1943If we were allowed to treat the assignments of error as covering the exceptions, such exceptions were involved under the rulings in Fuqua v. Hadden, 192 Ga. 654 ( 16 S. E. 2d, 728 ), and O’Rear v. Lamb, 194 Ga. 455 ( 22 S. E. 2d, 74 ).

1943If we were allowed to treat the assignments of error as covering the exceptions, such exceptions were involved under the rulings in Fuqua v. Hadden, 192 Ga. 654 ( 16 S. E. 2d, 728 ), and O’Rear v. Lamb, 194 Ga. 455 ( 22 S. E. 2d, 74 ).

1942After a careful consideration of the question it is our opinion that the record subjects the case to the principle of law announced in Tyre v. State, 112 Ga. 224 ( 37 S. E. 374 ) : “The law relating to the statutory offense of ‘shooting at another’ was not involved in a trial for assault with intent to murder, wherein it appeared that the accused, with threats to kill, wantonly, maliciously, and. with the intention of executing these threats, shot directly at the prosecutor with a pistol which, thus used, was a weapon likely to produce death.” The special assignment of error in that case was o

1942After a careful consideration of the question it is our opinion that the record subjects the case to the principle of law announced in Tyre v. State, 112 Ga. 224 ( 37 S. E. 374 ) : “The law relating to the statutory offense of ‘shooting at another’ was not involved in a trial for assault with intent to murder, wherein it appeared that the accused, with threats to kill, wantonly, maliciously, and. with the intention of executing these threats, shot directly at the prosecutor with a pistol which, thus used, was a weapon likely to produce death.” The special assignment of error in that case was o

1930Truluck v. Peeples, 1 Ga. 1 ; Kelly v. Strouse, 116 Ga. 872 (9) ( 43 S. E. 280 ).

1930Truluck v. Peeples, 1 Ga. 1 ; Kelly v. Strouse, 116 Ga. 872 (9) ( 43 S. E. 280 ).

1930Truluck v. Peeples, 1 Ga. 1 ; Kelly v. Strouse, 116 Ga. 872 (9) ( 43 S. E. 280 ).

1918Beclc, 133 Qa. 701 ( 66 S. E. 911 ), it was, said: “The decision complained of and the error alleged to exist therein ought to appear plainly.

1913His failure to do so is made the subject of a special assignment of error in the motion for a new trial, and, following the ruling which we have recently made in Allen v. State, ante, 657 ( 79 S. E. 769 ), this ground of the motion is well taken and a new trial should have been granted.

1906But a bill of exceptions which does not specify any error is not amendable, as was pointed out in Turner v. Alexander, 112 Ga. 820 , in which case section 5584 of the Civil Code, declaring that this court “shall not decide any question unless it is made by a special assignment of error in the bill of exceptions,” was construed in connection with section 5569, which provides that the Supreme Court shall not “dismiss any case for any want of technical conformity. to the statutes or rules regulating the practice in carrying cases to that court, where there is enough in the bill of exceptions or t

1904Civil Code, § 5584 ; Linder v. Whitehead, 116 Ga. 206 ; English v. Hill, Ib. 415 ; Kelly v. Strouse, Ib. 872(9).

1900Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Anderson, 102 Ga. 551 , and cases cited ; Henslee v. Henslee, 102 Ga. 554 ; Peavy v. Atkinson, 108 Ga. 167 ; Kimball v. Williams, 108 Ga. 812 ; Wheeler v. Worley, 110 Ga. 513 ; Warren v. Oliver, ante, 808.

1900Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Anderson, 102 Ga. 551 , and cases cited ; Henslee v. Henslee, 102 Ga. 554 ; Peavy v. Atkinson, 108 Ga. 167 ; Kimball v. Williams, 108 Ga. 812 ; Wheeler v. Worley, 110 Ga. 513 ; Warren v. Oliver, ante, 808.

1900Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Anderson, 102 Ga. 551 , and cases cited ; Henslee v. Henslee, 102 Ga. 554 ; Peavy v. Atkinson, 108 Ga. 167 ; Kimball v. Williams, 108 Ga. 812 ; Wheeler v. Worley, 110 Ga. 513 ; Warren v. Oliver, ante, 808.

1900Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Anderson, 102 Ga. 551 , and cases cited ; Henslee v. Henslee, 102 Ga. 554 ; Peavy v. Atkinson, 108 Ga. 167 ; Kimball v. Williams, 108 Ga. 812 ; Wheeler v. Worley, 110 Ga. 513 ; Warren v. Oliver, ante, 808.

1900Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Anderson, 102 Ga. 551 , and cases cited ; Henslee v. Henslee, 102 Ga. 554 ; Peavy v. Atkinson, 108 Ga. 167 ; Kimball v. Williams, 108 Ga. 812 ; Wheeler v. Worley, 110 Ga. 513 ; Warren v. Oliver, ante, 808.