Adams v. State

• Citation: 43 S.E. 703,117 Ga. 302
• Parties: ADAMS. v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 13 March 1903
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

43 S.E. 703

117 Ga. 302

ADAMS.

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 13, 1903.

CRIMINAL LAW—CONTINUANCE.

1. The accused did not, in the trial court, make a showing entitling him to a continuance, nor did he in this court present any better showing touching the propriety of setting aside the verdict of the jury.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Sumter County; Z. A. Littlejohn, Judge.

Monroe Adams was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.

T. F. Callaway, Allen Fort, Jr., and Jas. Taylor, for plaintiff in error.

F. A. Hooper, Sol. Gen., and Jno. C. Hart, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SIMMONS, C. J. The plaintiff in error, Monroe Adams, was Indicted for and convicted of the murder of his daughter. That he shot and killed her was admitted at the trial. From his statement it appears that he also killed his wife, though, he insisted, his intention was to kill another woman and her husband, at whose house his daughter was staying. His grievance against them was that they had allowed his daughter to meet at their house a man whose attentions to her met with his disapproval, and, according to his version, he shot at them in a spirit of revenge, being "crushed down" with grief because of an undue intimacy between his daughter and this man, and being "mad, crazy mad, and plum crazy." There was, on the other hand, evidence introduced in behalf of the state which tended very strongly to show that the accused had quarreled with his daughter, become angry with her, and killed her in a fit of passion. In no view of the case, therefore, can it be said that the verdict of the jury was unwarranted.

Before entering upon the trial, counsel for the accused stated to the court that they desired, but had not been able to procure, the presence of his mother and sister, who were understood to be in Birmingham, Ala. In this connection counsel further informed the court that they had, after having a talk with the accused, "determined that his mother would be an important witness in this case, and also his sister, besides being of assistance, " •counsel thought, "in conducting the case on his trial." No formal motion either to postpone the trial or grant a continuance appears, however, to have been made. Nor did counsel undertake to advise the court as to what the accused expected to be able to prove by his mother or by his sister, if granted an opportunity to have them present in the capacity of witnesses. This being so, we are not prepared to hold there...