Middleton v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Middleton v. State

148 S.E. 304, 39 Ga. App. 697, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 523

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1929

Docket19645

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 148 S.E. 304 (Middleton 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

Middleton v. State, 148 S.E. 304, 39 Ga. App. 697, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 523 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. A motion to continue a case, based upon the illness of leading counsel, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court; and where such counsel is present and personally makes the motion, the court may consider “his physical appearance and the mental and physical vigor displayed in making the motion, in determining whether the ends of justice require a continuance of the case.” Dale v. Beasley, 141 Ga. 594 (81 S. E. 849) ; Rogers v. State, 30 Ga. App. 636 (118 S. E. 757) , and cit. Under this ruling and the facts of the instant case, the refusal to continue the case was not error. Moreover, upon the hearing of the motion, the movant failed to testify that he expected to have the ’services of his leading counsel at the next term of the court, or that his application for a continuance was not made for the purpose of delay only.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the refusal to grant 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

Broyles, C. J.

1. A motion to continue a case, based upon the illness of leading counsel, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court; and where such counsel is present and personally makes the motion, the court may consider “his physical appearance and the mental and physical vigor displayed in making the motion, in determining whether the ends of justice require a continuance of the case.” Dale v. Beasley, 141 Ga. 594 (81 S. E. 849) ; Rogers v. State, 30 Ga. App. 636 (118 S. E. 757) , and cit. Under this ruling and the facts of the instant case, the refusal to continue the case was not error. Moreover, upon the hearing of the motion, the movant failed to testify that he expected to have the ’services of his leading counsel at the next term of the court, or that his application for a continuance was not made for the purpose of delay only.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 S.E. 304, 39 Ga. App. 697, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middleton-v-state-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack