Cobb v. State
This text of 35 S.E. 178 (Cobb v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
35 S.E. 178, 110 Ga. 314, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobb-v-state-ga-1900.