6 Ga. 253 | Ga. | 1849
By the Courts
delivering the opinion.
The first ground of error assigned upon the record in th& case is, that the Court refused to allow the defendant in the' Court below, á continuance of his cause, upon the showing made' therefor.
The discretion of the Court, in refusing the continuance, we think was properly exercised. It was admitted by the defendant,that the land which he had alleged in his plea had been purchased from Harris, and which the plaintiff had agreed to take, had been taken back by Harris, with his consent, as he acknowledged he had let Harris take back the land ; consequently, conceding the contract for the sale of the land to' the plaintiff was not void under the Statute of Frauds, the defendant had put it out off his power to comply with it, on his part.
The defendant promised only to pay interest on interest, which was lawfully past due, which does not, in our judgment,
The second instruction which the Court gave to the Jury, as to the manner in which they might malee the calculation, so as to purge the note of the usury, we think erroneous and objectionable, but as the Jury have based their calculation upon the first instruction, as is apparent from their verdict, we will not disturb it on that account. The first instruction was right, and the verdict rendered in accordance therewith is right; therefore, let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.