Citation Numbers: 28 Ga. 552
Judges: Benning
Filed Date: 6/15/1859
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
By the Court.
delivering the opinion.
Did the court below err in overruling the motion for a new trial ? We think so.
We think that the first ground of the motion was a
It is true, that there was no evidence to authorize the charge mentioned in the second ground, but, then, the court, in the charge itself, as good as told the jury so. In strictness, however, the charge ought not to have been given.
We rather think the same thing true of the first part of the charge contained in the third ground. The evidence is hardly sufficient to warrant a finding that the note had been paid off".
The latter part of this charge was, we think, authorized by the evidence. It is not certain, from the evidence, (Griggs’ letter,) that Griggs’ promise related to the note sued on. Light, it is probable, would be thrown on this part of the case, if all of the demands of every kind, held by Walker against Griggs, should be put in evidence.
The other grounds turn on the import and value of the evidence. As a new trial will be granted without them, it is best not to decide them.
New trial granted.