Hanson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hanson v. State

109 S.E. 523, 27 Ga. App. 590, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 287

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1921

Docket12630

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 109 S.E. 523 (Hanson v. State) 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

Hanson v. State, 109 S.E. 523, 27 Ga. App. 590, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 287 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

Only the first headnote needs elaboration. The first ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial is as follows: "Because at the beginning of the criminal week of the March term of the city court of LaGrange movant was advised by his then sole counsel, Judson Andrews, that on account of his physical condition a, leave of. absence had [been ?] granted him, and that the case against movant would not be tried at that term of court, and that it would [not P] be necessary to have any witnesses attend court until the-June term of said court. Movant had no knowledge, notice, or information that the case would be tried until the morning of the day that same was tried. Movant then had no other counsel and reported the matter to the solicitor of the city court of LaGrange, who of course could do nothing for movant regarding the matter. Movant shows that by reason of this instruction from his counsel he had made no arrangements for a trial, and had no witnesses in attendance upon court, and had not an opportunity to get his evidence properly before the court, and was by reason thereof denied a fair and impartial trial.” This ground of the motion is absolutely without merit. Although the defendant. was represented at the trial by two attorneys, one of them being the attorney above referred to as his "sole counsel/’’ yet the attention of the trial judge was not called to the foregoing facts. [591]*591nor was any motion made to postpone or continue the case. See Harrison v. State, supra; Phillips v. Bagwell Motor Car Co., 33 Ga. App. 488 (96 S. E. 334); Harrison v. State, 20 Ga. App. 13 (92 S. E. 388, 95 S. E. 630).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

Only the first headnote needs elaboration. The first ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial is as follows: "Because at the beginning of the criminal week of the March term of the city court of LaGrange movant was advised by his then sole counsel, Judson Andrews, that on account of his physical condition a, leave of. absence had [been ?] granted him, and that the case against movant would not be tried at that term of court, and that it would [not P] be necessary to have any witnesses attend court until the-June term of said court. Movant had no knowledge, notice, or information that the case would be tried until the morning of the day that same was tried. Movant then had no other counsel and reported the matter to the solicitor of the city court of LaGrange, who of course could do nothing for movant regarding the matter. Movant shows that by reason of this instruction from his counsel he had made no arrangements for a trial, and had no witnesses in attendance upon court, and had not an opportunity to get his evidence properly before the court, and was by reason thereof denied a fair and impartial trial.” This ground of the motion is absolutely without merit. Although the defendant. was represented at the trial by two attorneys, one of them being the attorney above referred to as his "sole counsel/’’ yet the attention of the trial judge was not called to the foregoing facts. [591]*591nor was any motion made to postpone or continue the case. See Harrison v. State, supra; Phillips v. Bagwell Motor Car Co., 33 Ga. App. 488 (96 S. E. 334); Harrison v. State, 20 Ga. App. 13 (92 S. E. 388, 95 S. E. 630).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 S.E. 523, 27 Ga. App. 590, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanson-v-state-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack