Tomlin v. State
34 S.E. 845, 110 Ga. 268, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 529
Opinion
1. It is not an abuse of discretion to refuse to grant a continuance upon the ground of absent witnesses, where the applicant therefor fails to show afiirmatively to the court that the application is not made for delay, and where from all the facts before him the judge is warranted in finding that such-was the purpose for which the continuance is sought. Penal Code, §962.
2. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, and the judgment of the trial court refusing a new trial will not be reversed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Tomlin v. State, 34 S.E. 845, 110 Ga. 268, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 529 (Ga. 1899).
34 S.E. 845 (Tomlin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Curry v. State
340 S.E.2d 250 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
Harris v. State
165 S.E.2d 462 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1968)
Vaughn v. State
118 S.E. 758 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Brooks v. State
60 S.E. 211 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)