Burkhalter v. Durrence
This text of 91 S.E.2d 774 (Burkhalter v. Durrence) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
When counsel goes to trial without the presence of the defendant, but makes no motion for a continuance and does not suggest his desire to have his client present at the trial, it will not require the granting of a new trial. This is true even though the defendant contends he possesses evidence which would have brought the trial to a different conclusion. “There is full power on the part of the counsel to represent the client, and it is just the same as if the client were there in person.” [375]*375Williams v. Simmons, 79 Ga. 649, 654 (7 S. E. 133). The trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Denmond v. Hillyer, 129 Ga. 698 (59 S. E. 806); McAnally v. Bank of Abbeville, 22 Ga. App. 178 (95 S. E. 737).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
91 S.E.2d 774, 93 Ga. App. 374, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burkhalter-v-durrence-gactapp-1956.