History
  • No items yet
midpage
Burkhalter v. Durrence
93 Ga. App. 374
Ga. Ct. App.
1956
Check Treatment
Quilman, J.

When counsel goes to trial without the presence of the defendant, but makes no motion for a continuance and does not suggest his desire to have his client present at the trial, it will not require the granting of a new trial. This is true even though the defendant contends he possesses evidence which would have brought the trial to a different conclusion. “There is full power on the part of the counsel to represent the client, and it is just the same as if the client were there in person.” *375Williams v. Simmons, 79 Ga. 649, 654 (7 S. E. 133). The trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Denmond v. Hillyer, 129 Ga. 698 (59 S. E. 806); McAnally v. Bank of Abbeville, 22 Ga. App. 178 (95 S. E. 737).

Decided February 15, 1956. H. H. Elders, for plaintiff in error. J. Max Cheney, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols, J., concurs. Felton, C. J., concurs in the judgment.

Case Details

Case Name: Burkhalter v. Durrence
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Feb 15, 1956
Citation: 93 Ga. App. 374
Docket Number: 36052
Court Abbreviation: Ga. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.