Young v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Young v. State

120 S.E. 37, 31 Ga. App. 185, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 834

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 15, 1923

Docket14995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 120 S.E. 37 (Young 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

Young v. State, 120 S.E. 37, 31 Ga. App. 185, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 834 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted of violating the prohibition statute. He complains that the court erred in not postponing his case to procure the testimony of a witness who resided in an adjoining county. On the day that the indictment was returned against him he was arraigned for trial and made his application, not to continue the case for the term, but to postpone it until the next day, so that he migljt have the benefit of the testimony of his absent witness, which according to his evidence would have [187]*187been material to his defense. The court overruled the motion to postpone. Under the particular facts of this case, we are of the opinion that it was error not to postpone the case, and for this reason, it was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted of violating the prohibition statute. He complains that the court erred in not postponing his case to procure the testimony of a witness who resided in an adjoining county. On the day that the indictment was returned against him he was arraigned for trial and made his application, not to continue the case for the term, but to postpone it until the next day, so that he migljt have the benefit of the testimony of his absent witness, which according to his evidence would have [187]*187been material to his defense. The court overruled the motion to postpone. Under the particular facts of this case, we are of the opinion that it was error not to postpone the case, and for this reason, it was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 S.E. 37, 31 Ga. App. 185, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-state-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack