¶1The verdict was authorized by the evidence; and the alleged newly discovered evidence, being merely cumulative and impeaching in its nature, did not require a new trial. “The discretion of a trial judge in refusing a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence will not be controlled, unless manifestly abused.” Tilley v. Cox, 119 Ga. 867, 872 (47 S. E. 219). Where a motion for a new trial is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, and affidavits are introduced, sustaining and disputing this ground of the motion, “the trial judge is the trior of the facts, -and it is his province to determine the credibility of the conflicting facts and contradictory witnesses.” Hayes v. State, 16 Ga. App. 334 (85 S. E. 253). Judgment affirmed.
18 Ga. App. 705
Wright v. State
Decided October 18, 1916
Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1916-10-18
<p>Indictment for sale of liquor; from Emanuel superior court-judge Hardeman. August 25, 1916.</p>
Relies on Tilley v. Cox · Hayes v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1916-10-18
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 1980
9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →