Horshaw v. Lessee of Cook

16 Ga. 526
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided October 15, 1854·No. No. 55·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

16 Ga. 526 (Horshaw v. Lessee of Cook) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matthews v. Dorsey
462 S.E.2d 452 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1995)
Turner v. State
22 S.E.2d 864 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Hook v. Teasley
72 Ga. 901 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1884)