Harrison v. Arrendale

In Harrison v. Arrendale, 113 Ga. App. 118, 124 (3) (147 SE2d 356) (1966), Harrison complained that the trial court's charge to the jury was misleading and confusing and did not correctly state the form of verdict. However, the record contained evidence showing that the parties were called into chambers by the judge presiding in said case and their assistance was requested in preparing the forms of verdict to be submitted to the jury impaneled to try said case. After discussion between counsel for each party and the judge presiding in said case the forms of verdict as contained in the court's charge were prepared by the judge presiding in said case and submitted to counsel for each party for approval and at said time neither counsel offered any objections to the form of verdict prepared by the court. Id. The Court held that Harrison's "failure to object under these circumstances amounted to acquiescence and a waiver of objection to the charge attacked as ground for new trial." Id.