Fudge v. State
89 S.E. 374, 18 Ga. App. 312, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 323
Opinion
1. In the absence of evidence affirmatively showing that the witness who was said to be in Florida was only temporarily beyond the limits of this State, or tending to show that he would probably be present at the next term of court, the trial judge, in overruling the motion for a continuance, did not abuse the discretion vested in him.
2. The evidence authorized the verdict. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fudge v. State, 89 S.E. 374, 18 Ga. App. 312, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 323 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).
89 S.E. 374 (Fudge v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Whitehead v. State
158 S.E. 917 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Watts v. State
92 S.E. 966 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)