evidence submitted hearing in Georgia

1997The trial court concluded finally that the evidence should be admitted, ruling that the test in Harper, supra, was not applicable, but that if it were, the evidence submitted at the hearing was sufficient to meet that test.

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1997The question of what type of evidence constitutes scientific test evidence which should be subjected to the Harper test has not been *703 directly decided by the appellate courts of Georgia, but the test has been applied to a wide range of evidence: a possible genetic basis for violent and impulsive behavior in certain individuals (Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (2) ( 455 SE2d 61 ) (1995)); breathalyzer tests (Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124 (3) ( 401 SE2d 516 ) (1991)); the phenomenon of sleep talk (Godfrey v. State, 258 Ga. 28 ( 365 SE2d 93 ) (1988)); analysis of fibers Williams v. State, 251

1943“In an equity case, if the judge refuses to approve an exception to a finding of fact by the auditor, his ruling will not be disturbed unless there be no evidence to support the finding.” Fitzpatrick v. Massee-Felton Lumber Co., 188 Ga. 80 ( 3 S. E. 2d, 91 ); Regal Textile Co. v. Feil, 189 Ga. 581 (4) ( 6 S. E. 2d, 908 ). (а) Defendants excepted to paragraph 46 of the findings of fact of the auditor: “The evidence submitted on the hearing before the auditor is substantially the same as the evidence submitted to the court at the time the interlocutory injunction was granted (which judgment was

1943“In an equity case, if the judge refuses to approve an exception to a finding of fact by the auditor, his ruling will not be disturbed unless there be no evidence to support the finding.” Fitzpatrick v. Massee-Felton Lumber Co., 188 Ga. 80 ( 3 S. E. 2d, 91 ); Regal Textile Co. v. Feil, 189 Ga. 581 (4) ( 6 S. E. 2d, 908 ). (а) Defendants excepted to paragraph 46 of the findings of fact of the auditor: “The evidence submitted on the hearing before the auditor is substantially the same as the evidence submitted to the court at the time the interlocutory injunction was granted (which judgment was

1943“In an equity case, if the judge refuses to approve an exception to a finding of fact by the auditor, his ruling will not be disturbed unless there be no evidence to support the finding.” Fitzpatrick v. Massee-Felton Lumber Co., 188 Ga. 80 ( 3 S. E. 2d, 91 ); Regal Textile Co. v. Feil, 189 Ga. 581 (4) ( 6 S. E. 2d, 908 ). (а) Defendants excepted to paragraph 46 of the findings of fact of the auditor: “The evidence submitted on the hearing before the auditor is substantially the same as the evidence submitted to the court at the time the interlocutory injunction was granted (which judgment was

1943“In an equity case, if the judge refuses to approve an exception to a finding of fact by the auditor, his ruling will not be disturbed unless there be no evidence to support the finding.” Fitzpatrick v. Massee-Felton Lumber Co., 188 Ga. 80 ( 3 S. E. 2d, 91 ); Regal Textile Co. v. Feil, 189 Ga. 581 (4) ( 6 S. E. 2d, 908 ). (а) Defendants excepted to paragraph 46 of the findings of fact of the auditor: “The evidence submitted on the hearing before the auditor is substantially the same as the evidence submitted to the court at the time the interlocutory injunction was granted (which judgment was

1943“In an equity case, if the judge refuses to approve an exception to a finding of fact by the auditor, his ruling will not be disturbed unless there be no evidence to support the finding.” Fitzpatrick v. Massee-Felton Lumber Co., 188 Ga. 80 ( 3 S. E. 2d, 91 ); Regal Textile Co. v. Feil, 189 Ga. 581 (4) ( 6 S. E. 2d, 908 ). (а) Defendants excepted to paragraph 46 of the findings of fact of the auditor: “The evidence submitted on the hearing before the auditor is substantially the same as the evidence submitted to the court at the time the interlocutory injunction was granted (which judgment was

1943“In an equity case, if the judge refuses to approve an exception to a finding of fact by the auditor, his ruling will not be disturbed unless there be no evidence to support the finding.” Fitzpatrick v. Massee-Felton Lumber Co., 188 Ga. 80 ( 3 S. E. 2d, 91 ); Regal Textile Co. v. Feil, 189 Ga. 581 (4) ( 6 S. E. 2d, 908 ). (а) Defendants excepted to paragraph 46 of the findings of fact of the auditor: “The evidence submitted on the hearing before the auditor is substantially the same as the evidence submitted to the court at the time the interlocutory injunction was granted (which judgment was

1943“In an equity case, if the judge refuses to approve an exception to a finding of fact by the auditor, his ruling will not be disturbed unless there be no evidence to support the finding.” Fitzpatrick v. Massee-Felton Lumber Co., 188 Ga. 80 ( 3 S. E. 2d, 91 ); Regal Textile Co. v. Feil, 189 Ga. 581 (4) ( 6 S. E. 2d, 908 ). (а) Defendants excepted to paragraph 46 of the findings of fact of the auditor: “The evidence submitted on the hearing before the auditor is substantially the same as the evidence submitted to the court at the time the interlocutory injunction was granted (which judgment was

1943“In an equity case, if the judge refuses to approve an exception to a finding of fact by the auditor, his ruling will not be disturbed unless there be no evidence to support the finding.” Fitzpatrick v. Massee-Felton Lumber Co., 188 Ga. 80 ( 3 S. E. 2d, 91 ); Regal Textile Co. v. Feil, 189 Ga. 581 (4) ( 6 S. E. 2d, 908 ). (а) Defendants excepted to paragraph 46 of the findings of fact of the auditor: “The evidence submitted on the hearing before the auditor is substantially the same as the evidence submitted to the court at the time the interlocutory injunction was granted (which judgment was

1940“The causative danger must be peculiar to the work, and not common to the neighborhood.” Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Neal, 55 Ga. App. 790, 801 .

1919Bedgood v. Floyd, 20 Ga. App. 617 ( 93 S. E. 218 ).

1919Bedgood v. Floyd, 20 Ga. App. 617 ( 93 S. E. 218 ).

1917The case of Bivins v. State, 145 Ga. 416 ( 89 S. E. 370 ), furnishes at least a physical precedent for the ruling that we make on this point; for in that case the following recital appears: “The evidence submitted on the hearing of the motion for change of venue very strongly tended to establish the fact that during the trial of the accused (about a year prior io the hearing of the. motion [italics ours]) there was imminent danger that he would be lynched.” Here, six months before the judge refused the motion, witnesses testified that in their opinion there was danger then existing that the de

1917The case of Bivins v. State, 145 Ga. 416 ( 89 S. E. 370 ), furnishes at least a physical precedent for the ruling that we make on this point; for in that case the following recital appears: “The evidence submitted on the hearing of the motion for change of venue very strongly tended to establish the fact that during the trial of the accused (about a year prior io the hearing of the. motion [italics ours]) there was imminent danger that he would be lynched.” Here, six months before the judge refused the motion, witnesses testified that in their opinion there was danger then existing that the de

1912See Eubank v. Mayor etc. of Eastman, 120 Ga. 1048 ( 48 S. E. 426 ); Glover v. State, 128 Ga. 1 ( 57 S. E. 101 ); Jackson v. Georgia etc. R.

1912See Eubank v. Mayor etc. of Eastman, 120 Ga. 1048 ( 48 S. E. 426 ); Glover v. State, 128 Ga. 1 ( 57 S. E. 101 ); Jackson v. Georgia etc. R.