History
  • No items yet
midpage
Littlefield v. State
22 Ga. App. 783
Ga. Ct. App.
1918
Check Treatment
Harwell, J.

1. The defendant’s motion for a continuance on account of absent witnesses failing to conform to the statutory requirements (Penal Code (1910), § 987; Civil Code, § 5715), the court did not err in overruling the motion.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial. See, in this connection, Littlefield v. State (case No. 9793), ante, 782.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodmorth, J., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Littlefield v. State
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Nov 1, 1918
Citation: 22 Ga. App. 783
Docket Number: 9792
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.