Cent. of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Dich, 48 S.E. 683 (Ga. 1904). · Go Syfert
Search
Cent. of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Dich, 48 S.E. 683 (Ga. 1904). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dryman v. Watts (gactapp, 2004-07-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1906 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1906 1966 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dryman v. Watts
Ga. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
It was according to what grade they were in.” The judge concluded that evidence about when school was in session was prejudicial and may have influenced the jury “because it was such a close case.” The Supreme Court of Georgia has long held that “[t]he sanctity of the court and the purity of trial by jury alike demand that the verdict shall not be in the slightest degree influenced or controlled by matters and conduct extrinsic to the trial.” Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65, 67 ( 48 SE 693 ) (1904).
discussed Cited "see" Philmon Chambers v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65, 67 (3) ( 48 SE 693 ) (1904) (“The sanctity of the 12 fair and impartial jury is a central safeguard to a fair trial in our system of criminal justice.”7 As our Supreme Court recognized well over a century ago, when a jury is selected and sworn to try the criminally accused, “[the law] contemplates that no outside influence shall be brought to bear on the minds of the jury, and that nothing shall occur outside of the trial which shall disturb their minds in any way.”8 And where, as here, “misconduct of a juror or of the jury is shown,[9] …
discussed Cited "see" Chambers v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65, 67 (3) ( 48 SE 693 ) (1904) (“The sanctity of the court and the purity of trial by jury alike demand that the verdict shall not be in the slightest degree influenced or controlled by matters and conduct extrinsic to the trial.”).
cited Cited "see" Bragg v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1915 · signal: see · confidence high
See Heavner v. Saeger, 79 Ga. 472 ( 4 S. E. 767 ), and Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65 ( 48 S. E. 693 ).
discussed Cited "see" Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Clark
Ga. Ct. App. · 1914 · signal: see · confidence high
See Buchanan v. State, 118 Ga. 751 ( 45 S. E. 607 ), King v. State, 119 Ga. 426 ( 46 S. E. 633 ), Sullivan v. State, 121 Ga. 183 -7 ( 48 S. E. 949 ), Desverges v. Goette, 121 Ga. 65 ( 48 S. E. 693 ), and Tolbert v. State, 124 Ga. 767 (1) ( 53 S. E. 327 ).
Central of Georgia Railway Company
v.
Dich
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Oct 15, 1904.
48 S.E. 683
Lawton & Cunningham, for plaintiff in error., Bobert L. Colding, contra.
Evans.
Published
Evans, J.

The only eye-witnesses to the killing of the horse were the servants of the railroad company. Their testimony was consistent, an'd demonstrated that by the exercise of ordinary care the killing of the horse could not have been averted. There was no evidence that their testimony was untrue. The presumption against the railroad company, arising from proof of the killing, was successfully overcome. The court erred in refusing to

grant a new trial. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.