Bone v. State
69 S.E. 37, 8 Ga. App. 373, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 165
Opinions
1. It is not an abuse of discretion to refuse to grant a continuance upon the ground of the absence of a witness, where it appears that the absent witness was not subpoenaed, and that the applicant, by exercise of due diligence, could have had the witness subpoenaed.
2. No error of law is complained of, and there was evidence to support the verdict, and the judgment refusing a new trial will not be disturbed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bone v. State, 69 S.E. 37, 8 Ga. App. 373, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 165 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).
69 S.E. 37 (Bone v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Welch v. State
8 S.E.2d 645 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Clark v. State
182 S.E. 195 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Edge v. State
108 S.E. 69 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)