King v. State
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Lumpkin, J.
1. There was no error in refusing to continue this case, on motion of the defendant’s counsel, until the next day, to give the defendant an opportunity of getting witnesses from Waycross, by whom he claimed that he could show that “he was a guest of the Southern Hotel at Waycross on the night of the 16th of November, and by whom he could show that he loft Waycross on the morning of the 17th, on, the train upon which he was arrested in Yaldosta.” Such ground did not show what witnesses it was expected to obtain, or what they would respectively testify, or what effort, if any, had been made to obtain their presence.
2. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. See Moran v. State, ante. Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.