Shehaney v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Shehaney v. State

147 S.E. 728, 39 Ga. App. 546, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 411

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 9, 1929

Docket19488

StatusPublished

This text of 147 S.E. 728 (Shehaney 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

Shehaney v. State, 147 S.E. 728, 39 Ga. App. 546, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 411 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, O. J.

1. Upon the hearing of the motion for a continuance of the case, based upon the absence of a witness, the movant failed to show that the witness was not absent by his (the movant’s) permission, or that he expected to have the testimony of the witness at the next term of the court, or that the application for a continuance was not made for the purpose of delay. The showing was deficient in several other particulars, and the denial of the motion was not error.

2. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial are not argued or insisted upon in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and are treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke amd Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, O. J.

1. Upon the hearing of the motion for a continuance of the case, based upon the absence of a witness, the movant failed to show that the witness was not absent by his (the movant’s) permission, or that he expected to have the testimony of the witness at the next term of the court, or that the application for a continuance was not made for the purpose of delay. The showing was deficient in several other particulars, and the denial of the motion was not error.

2. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial are not argued or insisted upon in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and are treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke amd Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 S.E. 728, 39 Ga. App. 546, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shehaney-v-state-gactapp-1929.