Howell v. Bowen

107 S.E. 619, 27 Ga. App. 236, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 795
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided June 17, 1921·No. 11999, 12086·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The court did not. abuse its discretion in refusing a continuance upon the ground of the defendant’s absence from court when the case was called for trial, when it appeared from the evidence that the defendant “ could come to court but not without considerable pain,” and when it did not appear that such pain would interfere with his management of the ease. Cavender v. Atkins, 2 Ga. App. 173 (58 S. E. 332).

2. No other assignment of error is relied upon.

Judgment affirmed on the main Mil of exceptions; cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bill, J., concur. Distraint; from city court of Blakely — Judge Sheffield. November 18, 1920. Glessner & Collins, for Howell. A. H. Gray, contra.

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

Howell v. Bowen, 107 S.E. 619, 27 Ga. App. 236, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 795 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

107 S.E. 619 (Howell v. Bowen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williams v. Baber
5 S.E.2d 703 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)