Cobb v. State
35 S.E. 178, 110 Ga. 314, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 404
Opinion
1. Irrespective of the counter-showing made by the State, the motion of the accused for a continuance, upon the ground of absent witnesses, was insufficient, in that it was not shown that the application was not made for the purpose of delay. Penal Code, § 962; Newsome v. State, 61 Ga. 481; Boggess v. Lowrey, 78 Ga. 353; Burnett v. State, 87 Ga. 622; Johnson v. State, 95 Ga. 499; Tomlin v. State, ante.
2. The evidence warranted the verdict and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cobb v. State, 35 S.E. 178, 110 Ga. 314, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 404 (Ga. 1900).
35 S.E. 178 (Cobb v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McGuire v. State
363 S.E.2d 850 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1987)
Keller v. State
195 S.E.2d 767 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Carroll v. Crawford
129 S.E.2d 865 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1963)
Carr v. State
98 S.E.2d 231 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1957)
Nelson v. State
66 S.E.2d 751 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Sutton v. State
28 S.E.2d 663 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Evans v. State
145 S.E. 512 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1928)
Buckner v. State
127 S.E. 154 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Long v. State
102 S.E. 359 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)
Tompkins v. American Land Co.
77 S.E. 623 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1913)
Macon & Birmingham Railway Co. v. Anderson
49 S.E. 791 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)