11 Ga. App. 495 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1912
The first exception to the judgment of the court below, which was adversé to the plaintiff in error, depends on the correctness of the lower court’s ruling upon the motion for continuance. Upon the call of the ease counsel for the plaintiff in •error moved for a continuance, on account of the absence of his «client (as well as on account of the absence of another witness, as
The learned trial -judge, in overruling the motion to continue, does not seem to have placed his decision upon the ground advanced by the defendant in error, but rather upon the fact that themovant’s continuances had been exhausted. Section 5717 is as-follows: “If either party shall be providentially prevented from attending at the trial of any cause, and the counsel of such absent: