Barlow v. State
99 S.E. 798, 24 Ga. App. 122, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 442
Opinion
1. The court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance based upon the absence of an alleged material witness, it not appearing that the witness resided within the county. The witness being in the United States Army, there was no reason to expect that he would be present at the next term of the court.
2. The evidence authorized the verdict, which was approved by the trial judge. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Barlow v. State, 99 S.E. 798, 24 Ga. App. 122, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 442 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).
99 S.E. 798 (Barlow v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Curry v. State
340 S.E.2d 250 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
Griffin v. State
69 S.E.2d 665 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Tyree v. State
39 S.E.2d 441 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1946)
Bowers v. Fred W. Amend Co.
35 S.E.2d 15 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1945)
James v. State
32 S.E.2d 431 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)