Littlefield v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Littlefield v. State

97 S.E. 258, 22 Ga. App. 783

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 1, 1918

Docket9792

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 97 S.E. 258 (Littlefield v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Littlefield v. State, 97 S.E. 258, 22 Ga. App. 783 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Harwell, J.

1. The defendant’s motion for a continuance on account of absent witnesses failing to conform to the statutory requirements (Penal Code (1910), § 987; Civil Code, § 5715), the court did not err in overruling the motion.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial. See, in this connection, Littlefield v. State (case No. 9793), ante, 782.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodmorth, J., concur.

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