Pittman v. Dorsey

25 Ga. App. 596
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided March 15, 1920·No. 11135·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Motions for continuance being addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the evidence in this case adduced upon the hearing of a motion for continuance being conflicting, the trial judge did not err in refusing to continue the case.

2. Where a scire facias issues against a principal and a surety upon a forfeited recognizance, the mere tender of additional bail, unaccepted and unapproved, is no defense against a final judgment. See, in this connection, Penal Code (1910), § 960; Griffin v. Moore, 2 Ga. 331; Williams v. Jenkins, 53 Ga. 166.

3. The trial judge, without the intervention of a jury, properly entered judgment absolute against the principal and the surety.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

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

Pittman v. Dorsey, 25 Ga. App. 596 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

25 Ga. App. 596 (Pittman v. Dorsey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Crow v. State
70 S.E.2d 601 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
United Motor Freight Terminals v. Driver
44 S.E.2d 156 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)