Horshaw v. Lessee of Cook

Supreme Court of Georgia

Horshaw v. Lessee of Cook

16 Ga. 526

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 15, 1854

DocketNo. 55

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 16 Ga. 526 (Horshaw v. Lessee of Cook) 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.

Bluebook

Horshaw v. Lessee of Cook, 16 Ga. 526 (Ga. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Starnes J.

delivering the opinion.

This Court has decided, and upon sound principles, that the •. mere absence of Counsel is not a sufficient ground for the continuance of a cause. See Allen vs. the State, (11 Ga. R. 85) and the cases there cited. It has recognized the absence of the leading Counsel from Providential cause, as sufficient to authorize a continuance; but nothing short of this. It does -not appear that General Hansell was even the leading Counsel [527]*527in this cause; and it is to be presumed he was not, or it would-have been shown; nor does the cause of his absence appear.

The fact that he had defendant’s -title papers with'him, cannot help the showing. The law required the defendant to have these papers at Court, that he might be in readiness for trial. It was at his own risk, therefo) ft, and "manifested a.lwant of proper diligence, when he permitted, another, especially .one who was not his leading Counsel, to keep them in his possession, •and away from Court.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

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

By the Court.

Starnes J.

delivering the opinion.

This Court has decided, and upon sound principles, that the •. mere absence of Counsel is not a sufficient ground for the continuance of a cause. See Allen vs. the State, (11 Ga. R. 85) and the cases there cited. It has recognized the absence of the leading Counsel from Providential cause, as sufficient to authorize a continuance; but nothing short of this. It does -not appear that General Hansell was even the leading Counsel [527]*527in this cause; and it is to be presumed he was not, or it would-have been shown; nor does the cause of his absence appear.

The fact that he had defendant’s -title papers with'him, cannot help the showing. The law required the defendant to have these papers at Court, that he might be in readiness for trial. It was at his own risk, therefo) ft, and "manifested a.lwant of proper diligence, when he permitted, another, especially .one who was not his leading Counsel, to keep them in his possession, •and away from Court.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Ga. 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horshaw-v-lessee-of-cook-ga-1854.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack