Ellis v. State

103 S.E. 715, 25 Ga. App. 394
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided June 15, 1920·No. 11438·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. Motions for continuance, while addressed largely to the discretion of the trial judge, must come up to the requirement of law as to diligence, service of subpoena, etc. In this case no legal showing for a continuance was made, and it was not error to overrule the motion for a continuance.

2. The verdict of voluntary manslaughter was authorized by the evidence, and it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. Thomas & Thomas, for plaintiff in error. W. O. Dean, solicitor-general, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ellis v. State, 103 S.E. 715, 25 Ga. App. 394 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

103 S.E. 715 (Ellis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thomas v. Ferrier
75 S.E.2d 284 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)