Huff v. State
97 S.E. 200, 22 Ga. App. 788, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 755
Opinion
1. It does not appear that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance based upon the absence of certain witnesses who did 'not reside in the county where the case was pending.
2.' The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed..
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Huff v. State, 97 S.E. 200, 22 Ga. App. 788, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 755 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).
97 S.E. 200 (Huff 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)