Power v. State
69 S.E. 315, 8 Ga. App. 408, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 189
Opinion
1. The evidence authorized the conviction, and the ruling is controlled by the decisions in Colbert v. State, supra, Griffin v. State, 2 Ga. App. 534 (58 S. E. 781), and Harman v. State, 120 Ga. 197 (47 S. E. 547).
2, There was no error in overruling the motion for a continuance. The evidence showed that the absent witness was inaccessible, and it was not shown and could not be shown that his attendance was expected at the next term of court.. Howard v. State, 7 Ga. App. 61 (65 S. E. 1076). Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Power v. State, 69 S.E. 315, 8 Ga. App. 408, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 189 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).
69 S.E. 315 (Power v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Rider v. State
173 S.E.2d 874 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Mims v. State
4 S.E.2d 831 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Patton v. State
2 S.E.2d 511 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)
Lewis v. State
195 S.E. 303 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
McFarlin v. State
83 S.E. 795 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Ford v. Superior Court
118 P. 96 (California Court of Appeal, 1911)