Pugh v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pugh v. State

68 S.E. 309, 7 Ga. App. 814, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 537

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 14, 1910

Docket2643

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 68 S.E. 309 (Pugh 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

Pugh v. State, 68 S.E. 309, 7 Ga. App. 814, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 537 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

The defendant was convicted at the August term, 1910, of Pulaski superior court. A motion for a new trial was duly hied, and was set to be heard on October 2, in vacation. On that date the movant asked for a continuance until October 8. The continuance was granted, and was noted on the docket, but no written order was taken. On October 8 the movant applied for and obtained a written order continuing the motion until October 18. On October 18, the movant having failed to appear and prosecute the motion, it was dismissed. The only point made was that, as no written order of continuance was taken on October 2, the [815]*815ease went over to the next regular session, and that the subsequent orders were coram non judice. Even if this point were otherwise valid in the light of the movant’s own participation in procuring the orders, still it is not -well taken, for the very sufficient reason that under the Civil Code of 1895, §§4323, 4324, the judges of the superior and city courts have the power to hear and determine motions for new trial in vacation, without any order having been passed in term to that effect, provided the party or his counsel has ten days notice of the time and place of the hearing.

*Judgment affirmed.

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

Powell, J.

The defendant was convicted at the August term, 1910, of Pulaski superior court. A motion for a new trial was duly hied, and was set to be heard on October 2, in vacation. On that date the movant asked for a continuance until October 8. The continuance was granted, and was noted on the docket, but no written order was taken. On October 8 the movant applied for and obtained a written order continuing the motion until October 18. On October 18, the movant having failed to appear and prosecute the motion, it was dismissed. The only point made was that, as no written order of continuance was taken on October 2, the [815]*815ease went over to the next regular session, and that the subsequent orders were coram non judice. Even if this point were otherwise valid in the light of the movant’s own participation in procuring the orders, still it is not -well taken, for the very sufficient reason that under the Civil Code of 1895, §§4323, 4324, the judges of the superior and city courts have the power to hear and determine motions for new trial in vacation, without any order having been passed in term to that effect, provided the party or his counsel has ten days notice of the time and place of the hearing.

*Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 S.E. 309, 7 Ga. App. 814, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pugh-v-state-gactapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack