History
  • No items yet
midpage
Finch v. State
101 Ga. App. 526
Ga. Ct. App.
1960
Check Treatment
Carlisle, Judge.

The sole question for decision in this case is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying to the defendant a continuance on account of two absent witnesses. It appeared from the defendant’s showing that the two witnesses were his mother and father who were advanced in age, and who, under the testimony, were confined to their beds at home, the defendant testifying that they were invalids, his father having been so for some time and his mother having been confined for approximately two weeks prior to the showing. The defendant also introduced a doctor’s certificate showing substantially the same facts. Nowhere does it appear from the showing made by him that these witnesses would ever be able to get up out of their beds and come to court, and, consequently, he made no showing that he expected to be able to procure their testimony at the next term of court. Accordingly, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing a continuance. Collins v. State, 19 Ga. App. 751 (92 S. E. 229); Cason v. State, 23 Ga. App. 540 (1) (99 S. E. 61); Cumby v. New Albany Box &c. Co., 58 Ga. App. 843 (200 S. E. 307).

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., Townsend and Frankum, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Finch v. State
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Apr 15, 1960
Citation: 101 Ga. App. 526
Docket Number: 38278
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.