Orr v. State
Orr v. State
Opinion of the Court
1. “In all applications for continuances upon the ground of the absence of a witness, it shall be shown to the court that the witness is absent; that he has been subpoenaed; that he resides in the *353 county where the case is pending; that his testimony is material; that such witness is not absent by the permission, directly or indirectly, of such applicant; that he expects he will be able to procure the testimony of such witness at the next term of the court; and that such application is not made for the purpose of delay, but to enable the party to procure the testimony of such absent witness; and must state the facts expected to be proved by such absent witness.” Code, § 81-1410. In this case the showing for continuance did not meet the above requirements. Smith v. State, 170 Ga. 234 (152 S. E. 482); Long v. State, 25 Ga. App. 22 (102 S. E. 350). The showing was not complete in several essentials required; and for no reason shown by the record . did the court err in overruling the motion for continuance. The evidence supported the verdict, and the court properly overruled the motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Orr v. the State
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published