118 Ga. 763 | Ga. | 1903
While some courts have ruled that a continuance will not be granted on the ground of the absence of impeaching or sustaining witnesses, this court has never directly passed on the point. In Studstill v. State, 7 Ga. 10, and Fox v. State, 9 Ga. 375, the absent witnesses were not to prove character, but specific impeaching facts and statements. The question is one pe
In Maynard v. Cleveland, 76 Ga. 52, Ryder v. State, 100 Ga. 528, and Williams v. Fambro, 30 Ga. 232, the absent witnesses were not to testify as to the character for truth and veracity of an}r one concerned in the trial; but in one case as to the sanity of the accused ; in another as to the character of a slave, which illustrated the question of his money value, and also a fact relied on by the defendant, who was sued for killing him. In the other it appeared that the plaintiff would testify to one state of facts, the defendant to an exactly opposite state of facts, and the evidence of the absent witness would tend to overcome this equipoise. Nothing of the kind appears in the motion here, and there was no abuse of discretion in refusing a continuance. Civil Code, § 5488. Compare McCurdy v. Terry, 33 Ga. 55; 4 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 853.
Judgment affirmed.