motion assigns error in Georgia

1963This assignment of error is substantially the same as that contained in Morris v. State, 97 Ga. App. 762 (2) ( 104 SE2d 483 ), and the charge complained of as ruled in that case was not error.

1963This assignment of error is substantially the same as that contained in Morris v. State, 97 Ga. App. 762 (2) ( 104 SE2d 483 ), and the charge complained of as ruled in that case was not error.

1961Culpepper v. Hall, 22 Ga. App. 715 (1) ( 97 SE 111 ); Atlanta Life Ins.

1961Culpepper v. Hall, 22 Ga. App. 715 (1) ( 97 SE 111 ); Atlanta Life Ins.

1944Under this principle of law, and under authority of the decision in Higgs v. State, 145 Ga. 414 ( 89 S. E. 361 ), and cases cited therein, and Switzer v. State, 28 Ga. App. 747 ( 113 S. E. 55 ), the court did not, under the facts of this case, abuse its discretion in overruling the motion for continuance. (6) Ground 2 of the motion assigns error because the court, over objection of the defendant, admitted in evidence the testimony of the sheriff, and of State trooper Beasley, on the ground that the manner in which the testimony was obtained forced her to give evidence against herself in violat

1944Under this principle of law, and under authority of the decision in Higgs v. State, 145 Ga. 414 ( 89 S. E. 361 ), and cases cited therein, and Switzer v. State, 28 Ga. App. 747 ( 113 S. E. 55 ), the court did not, under the facts of this case, abuse its discretion in overruling the motion for continuance. (6) Ground 2 of the motion assigns error because the court, over objection of the defendant, admitted in evidence the testimony of the sheriff, and of State trooper Beasley, on the ground that the manner in which the testimony was obtained forced her to give evidence against herself in violat

1944Under this principle of law, and under authority of the decision in Higgs v. State, 145 Ga. 414 ( 89 S. E. 361 ), and cases cited therein, and Switzer v. State, 28 Ga. App. 747 ( 113 S. E. 55 ), the court did not, under the facts of this case, abuse its discretion in overruling the motion for continuance. (6) Ground 2 of the motion assigns error because the court, over objection of the defendant, admitted in evidence the testimony of the sheriff, and of State trooper Beasley, on the ground that the manner in which the testimony was obtained forced her to give evidence against herself in violat

1944Under this principle of law, and under authority of the decision in Higgs v. State, 145 Ga. 414 ( 89 S. E. 361 ), and cases cited therein, and Switzer v. State, 28 Ga. App. 747 ( 113 S. E. 55 ), the court did not, under the facts of this case, abuse its discretion in overruling the motion for continuance. (6) Ground 2 of the motion assigns error because the court, over objection of the defendant, admitted in evidence the testimony of the sheriff, and of State trooper Beasley, on the ground that the manner in which the testimony was obtained forced her to give evidence against herself in violat

1942Almost immediately following the excerpt complained of the court charged: “I charge you, if you believe that at the time the insured was injured he was violating a law, there must -be a causative connection between the act which constituted the violation of the law and the death of the insured.” The charge was not error for the reason assigned and was applicable to the evidence and authorized by Gaynor v. Travelers Insurance Co., 12 Ga. App. 601, 603 ( 77 S. E. 1072 ), Travelers Insurance Co. v. Wyness, supra; and Newsome v. Travelers Insurance Co., 143 Ga. 785 ( 85 S. E. 1035 ).

1942Almost immediately following the excerpt complained of the court charged: “I charge you, if you believe that at the time the insured was injured he was violating a law, there must -be a causative connection between the act which constituted the violation of the law and the death of the insured.” The charge was not error for the reason assigned and was applicable to the evidence and authorized by Gaynor v. Travelers Insurance Co., 12 Ga. App. 601, 603 ( 77 S. E. 1072 ), Travelers Insurance Co. v. Wyness, supra; and Newsome v. Travelers Insurance Co., 143 Ga. 785 ( 85 S. E. 1035 ).

1941“Where the defendant in a criminal ease 'exercises his right of making a statement not under oath, such statement may be contradicted by testimony as to the facts which it narrates.” Doyle v. State, 77 Ga. 513 (2); Morris v. State, 177 Ga. 106, 115 ( 169 S. E. 495 ), and cit.

1935One ground of the motion assigns error on the following charge by the court to the jury: “Now in case of doubt, as I said, you are to look to all of the facts and circumstances together with the testimony showing the condition of the deceased’s mind at the time of the execution of the will, or the purported will, on January 18th, 1934.” This principle of law was laid down in Terry v. Buffington, 11 Ga. 337 ( 56 Am.

1932“Original records of one court ordinarily are not admissible in evidence in a different court, but certified copies of such papers constitute primary evidence.” Hall v. Treadaway, 12 Ga. App. 492 ( 77 S. E. 878 ) ; Georgia Engineering Co. v. Horton, 135.

1932“Original records of one court ordinarily are not admissible in evidence in a different court, but certified copies of such papers constitute primary evidence.” Hall v. Treadaway, 12 Ga. App. 492 ( 77 S. E. 878 ) ; Georgia Engineering Co. v. Horton, 135.

1925The extract complained of does not seem to be a complete sentence, and an exception to “an extract from the charge, the extract consisting of an uncompleted sentence which is without meaning as it stands and announces no proposition of law, is without merit.” Parks v. Hailey, 142 Ga. 391 (9) ( 83 S. E. 100 ).

1925The extract complained of does not seem to be a complete sentence, and an exception to “an extract from the charge, the extract consisting of an uncompleted sentence which is without meaning as it stands and announces no proposition of law, is without merit.” Parks v. Hailey, 142 Ga. 391 (9) ( 83 S. E. 100 ).

1923The fourteenth ground of the motion assigns error upon the refusal of the court to charge the rule laid down in the Civil Code, § 4537, as follows: “ The law is that when one of two innocent persons must suffer by the act of a third person, he who puts it in the power of the third person to inflict the injury must bear the loss.” This section was codified from the decision of this court in Blaisdell v. Bohr, 77 Ga. 381 ; upon a state of facts entirely different from the facts of the case at bar; and this principle was not applicable in the present case.

1922Clare v. Drexler, 152 Ga. 419 ( 110 S. E. 176 ). 4 (8th ground).

1922Clare v. Drexler, 152 Ga. 419 ( 110 S. E. 176 ). 4 (8th ground).