27 Ga. App. 78 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1921
Lead Opinion
1. “ Continuances for the absence of counsel are not favored. A strict showing is required, especially where counsel other than the absent counsel has been secured and it is not shown that the defendant was injured by the absence of his original or leading counsel.” New v. State, 26 Ga. App. 7 (105 S. E. 50). Under this ruling and all the facts brought out by the showing and counter showing, the judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to continue the ease.
2. “ It was not error to deny a motion for a mistrial in a criminal case upon the ground that the defendant has not been arraigned and had not waived arraignment, which motion was made after the jury had been
3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and for no reason assigned did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. The motion to continue this case, upon the ground of the providential absence of leading counsel for the defendant, was, in my opinion, up to the requirements of section 990 of the Penal Code (1910); and therefore I think the motion to continue should have been granted.