Harris v. State ( 1929 )

Broyles, C. J.

1. In eacli of these eases special grounds 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the motion for a new trial are not complete and understandable within themselves and can not be considered by this court.

2. The verdict in each ease being demanded by the evidence, the alleged errors in the charge of the court, if errors, do not require another hearing of the case. The refusal in each case to grant a new trial was not error. Judgments affirmed.

Decided August 23, 1929. Earl W. Butler, B. L. Addlelon, for plaintiff in error. Charles H. Garrett, solicitor-general, contra. Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur.