Freeman v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Freeman v. City of Atlanta

77 S.E. 891, 12 Ga. App. 564, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 643

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 2, 1913

Docket4674

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 S.E. 891 (Freeman v. City of Atlanta) 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.

Bluebook

Freeman v. City of Atlanta, 77 S.E. 891, 12 Ga. App. 564, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 643 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

A refusal to grant a continuance, in order to procure the presence of an absent witness for the purpose of impeaching an adverse witness, will not, generally, be held to have been an abuse of discretion, when the judgment complained of was fully authorized by evidence other than the testimony of the witness whom it was sought to impeach. Especially was there no abuse of discretion in the present case, One postponement having already been granted to enable the accused to procure additional evidence, and the only showing for a further postponement being the statement of counsel that he and his client had information that certain persons who were absent from the city would testify to the general bad character of the witness, and it not appearing when they would return. Judgment affirmed.

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

Pottle, J.

A refusal to grant a continuance, in order to procure the presence of an absent witness for the purpose of impeaching an adverse witness, will not, generally, be held to have been an abuse of discretion, when the judgment complained of was fully authorized by evidence other than the testimony of the witness whom it was sought to impeach. Especially was there no abuse of discretion in the present case, One postponement having already been granted to enable the accused to procure additional evidence, and the only showing for a further postponement being the statement of counsel that he and his client had information that certain persons who were absent from the city would testify to the general bad character of the witness, and it not appearing when they would return. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 S.E. 891, 12 Ga. App. 564, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack