Joiner v. State

118 S.E. 222, 30 Ga. App. 342, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 443
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Joiner v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 29 Ga. App. 363
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided June 12, 1923·No. 14447·Published

Opinion

Bkoyles, C. J.

1. Where a party in a cause makes a motion for a continuance on the ground of the absence of his counsel, the movant must swear that he cannot go safely to trial without the services of such absent counsel, that he expects his services at the next term, of the court, and that the application for a continuance is not made for delay only. Civil Code (1910), § 5718.

(a) Where the movant does not comply with the above statutory requirements, the refusal to grant the continuance is not error. Smith v. Printup, 59 Ga. 610 (1); Lamar v. McDaniel, 78 Ga. 547 (2) (3 S. E. 409); Whitley v. Clegg, 120 Ga. 1038, 1040 (48 S. E. 406). Under this ruling the court did not err in overruling the motion for a continuance in the instant case.

[343]*343Decided June 12, 1923. Frank G. Robb, for plaintiff in error. F. G. Weathers, solicitor, contra.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict and the oven'uling of the motion for a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed,.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Joiner v. State, 118 S.E. 222, 30 Ga. App. 342, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 443 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

118 S.E. 222 (Joiner v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith, Son & Brother v. Printup Bros. & Co.
59 Ga. 610 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1877)
Lamar v. McDaniel
3 S.E. 409 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1887)
Whitley v. Clegg
48 S.E. 406 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)