defendant contends rule in Georgia

1985This issue has been decided contrary to defendant’s contentions in Clarke v. State, 170 Ga. App. 852 ( 319 SE2d 16 ) (1984). 4.

1985This issue has been decided contrary to defendant’s contentions in Clarke v. State, 170 Ga. App. 852 ( 319 SE2d 16 ) (1984). 4.

1982Corp., 157 Ga. App. 343, 347 ( 277 SE2d 328 ), the defendant contends that his defense of accord and satisfaction had not been pierced and no showing had been made to authorize the granting of summary judgment under the circumstances.

1981Curtis v. State, supra. The defendant contends that an instruction concerning consent also should have been given as to the kidnapping and aggravated sodomy counts.

1977Trial of a special plea of insanity (i.e., insanity at time of trial) is civil in nature (Bacon v. State, 222 Ga. 151 (1) ( 149 SE2d 111 ) (1966), Lingo v. State, 224 Ga. 333, 340 ( 162 SE2d 1 ) (1968)), and the burden of producing evidence of insanity is upon the defendant (Coker v. State, 234 Ga. 555, 561 ( 216 SE2d 782 ) (1975)).

1977Trial of a special plea of insanity (i.e., insanity at time of trial) is civil in nature (Bacon v. State, 222 Ga. 151 (1) ( 149 SE2d 111 ) (1966), Lingo v. State, 224 Ga. 333, 340 ( 162 SE2d 1 ) (1968)), and the burden of producing evidence of insanity is upon the defendant (Coker v. State, 234 Ga. 555, 561 ( 216 SE2d 782 ) (1975)).

1977Trial of a special plea of insanity (i.e., insanity at time of trial) is civil in nature (Bacon v. State, 222 Ga. 151 (1) ( 149 SE2d 111 ) (1966), Lingo v. State, 224 Ga. 333, 340 ( 162 SE2d 1 ) (1968)), and the burden of producing evidence of insanity is upon the defendant (Coker v. State, 234 Ga. 555, 561 ( 216 SE2d 782 ) (1975)).

1977Trial of a special plea of insanity (i.e., insanity at time of trial) is civil in nature (Bacon v. State, 222 Ga. 151 (1) ( 149 SE2d 111 ) (1966), Lingo v. State, 224 Ga. 333, 340 ( 162 SE2d 1 ) (1968)), and the burden of producing evidence of insanity is upon the defendant (Coker v. State, 234 Ga. 555, 561 ( 216 SE2d 782 ) (1975)).

1960The Sanders case holds: “A judgment-based on the jury’s verdict cannot be set aside by a motion to set aside as long as the verdict upon which the judgment is based stands and has not been set aside by proper procedure (Buchanan v. Nash, 211 Ga. 343 , 86 S. E. 2d 111 ); therefore the court erred in setting aside the judgment since it was based on a jury’s verdict which had not been set aside.” However, the defendant contends the rule is not applicable in the instant case, because they filed a motion for new trial, as well as the motion to set aside the judgment.

1960The Sanders case holds: “A judgment-based on the jury’s verdict cannot be set aside by a motion to set aside as long as the verdict upon which the judgment is based stands and has not been set aside by proper procedure (Buchanan v. Nash, 211 Ga. 343 , 86 S. E. 2d 111 ); therefore the court erred in setting aside the judgment since it was based on a jury’s verdict which had not been set aside.” However, the defendant contends the rule is not applicable in the instant case, because they filed a motion for new trial, as well as the motion to set aside the judgment.

1954Co., 60 Ga. App. 523 (2) ( 3 S. E. 2d 916 ): “When death has sealed the mouth of a witness, and there is no other witness as to such deceased witness’s injury and its cause,- it being contended that the injury was the cause of his death, ‘the declarations of a party himself, to whomsoever made, are competent evidence, when confined strictly to such complaints, expressions, and ex- *40 claipations as furnish evidence of a present-existing pain or malady, to prove his condition, ills, pains, and symptoms, whether arising from sickness or from an injury by accident or violence’.” The defendant co

1954Co., 60 Ga. App. 523 (2) ( 3 S. E. 2d 916 ): “When death has sealed the mouth of a witness, and there is no other witness as to such deceased witness’s injury and its cause,- it being contended that the injury was the cause of his death, ‘the declarations of a party himself, to whomsoever made, are competent evidence, when confined strictly to such complaints, expressions, and ex- *40 claipations as furnish evidence of a present-existing pain or malady, to prove his condition, ills, pains, and symptoms, whether arising from sickness or from an injury by accident or violence’.” The defendant co

1951Randall v. State, supra. The defendant contends that the rule, that the jury is forbidden to arbitrarily disregard direct and positive testimony *192 which is wholly unimpeached, not contradicted, and in no way discredited, is applicable to the instant case, under the authority of Gibbs v. State, 8 Ga. App. 107 ( 68 S. E. 742 ), Hampton v. State, 6 Ga. App. 778 ( 65 S. E. 816 ), and certain other cases to the same effect upon which he relies in his brief.

1951Randall v. State, supra. The defendant contends that the rule, that the jury is forbidden to arbitrarily disregard direct and positive testimony *192 which is wholly unimpeached, not contradicted, and in no way discredited, is applicable to the instant case, under the authority of Gibbs v. State, 8 Ga. App. 107 ( 68 S. E. 742 ), Hampton v. State, 6 Ga. App. 778 ( 65 S. E. 816 ), and certain other cases to the same effect upon which he relies in his brief.

1951Randall v. State, supra. The defendant contends that the rule, that the jury is forbidden to arbitrarily disregard direct and positive testimony *192 which is wholly unimpeached, not contradicted, and in no way discredited, is applicable to the instant case, under the authority of Gibbs v. State, 8 Ga. App. 107 ( 68 S. E. 742 ), Hampton v. State, 6 Ga. App. 778 ( 65 S. E. 816 ), and certain other cases to the same effect upon which he relies in his brief.

1951Randall v. State, supra. The defendant contends that the rule, that the jury is forbidden to arbitrarily disregard direct and positive testimony *192 which is wholly unimpeached, not contradicted, and in no way discredited, is applicable to the instant case, under the authority of Gibbs v. State, 8 Ga. App. 107 ( 68 S. E. 742 ), Hampton v. State, 6 Ga. App. 778 ( 65 S. E. 816 ), and certain other cases to the same effect upon which he relies in his brief.