Pugh v. State
Headnotes
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.
Powell, J.
The defendant was convicted at the August term, 1910, of Pulaski superior court. A motion for a new trial was duly hied, and was set to be heard on October 2, in vacation. On that date the movant asked for a continuance until October 8. The continuance was granted, and was noted on the docket, but no written order was taken. On October 8 the movant applied for and obtained a written order continuing the motion until October 18. On October 18, the movant having failed to appear and prosecute the motion, it was dismissed. The only point made was that, as no written order of continuance was taken on October 2, the *815 ease went over to the next regular session, and that the subsequent orders were coram non judice. Even if this point were otherwise valid in the light of the movant’s own participation in procuring the orders, still it is not -well taken, for the very sufficient reason that under the Civil Code of 1895, §§4323, 4324, the judges of the superior and city courts have the power to hear and determine motions for new trial in vacation, without any order having been passed in term to that effect, provided the party or his counsel has ten days notice of the time and place of the hearing.
*Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.