Varnadoe v. State
This text of 67 Ga. 768 (Varnadoe v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1. The verdict is amply supported by the evidence.
2. While on a motion for a continuance in a criminal case on the ground of the absence of a witness, the presiding judge should not disbelieve the oath of the defendant as to what such witness will swear, except on the strongest sort of evidence, if at all,- yet where the testimony of such witness, if present, would merely be cumulative and would not contradict the testimony for the state on any controlling point in the case, this court will not control the discretion of the presiding judge in refusing a continuance.
3. The venue being proved and there being no denial of it by any witness, there was no error in refusing to charge a hypothesis that it had not been so proved.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
67 Ga. 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/varnadoe-v-state-ga-1881.