Brown v. State

• Decision Date: 10 May 1904
• Citation: 120 Ga. 145,47 S.E. 543
• Parties: BROWN . v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

47 S.E. 543

120 Ga. 145

BROWN .

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 10, 1904.

CRIMINAL LAW — CONTINUANCE — GROUNDS — DISCRETION OF TRIAL COURT.

1. While motions for continuance and postponement are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, that discretion should be exercised in a reasonable manner. Where, on the trial of a criminal case, it appeared that the accused had been arrested in another county, brought to the county where the accusation was sued out against him, and there lodged in jail on the night before his case was called for trial; that, on account of his inability to employ an attorney, counsel was appointed to defend him at the time when the case was so called; that the witnesses desired by him lived in another county, and no opportunity had been afforded him to have them subpoenaed; that the law under which he was accused was of recent enactment; and that the attorney appointed to represent the accused had had neither the time nor the opportunity to prepare for his defense or familiarize himself with the statute—a motion to postpone the hearing of the case for one day should have been granted.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Douglas; Devi Osteen, Judge.

S. L. Brown was convicted of cheating and swindling, and brings error. Reversed.

Lawson Keeley, C. A. Ward, and W. P. Ward, for plaintiff in error.

M. D. Dickerson, Sol., for the State.

CANDLER, J. The accused was tried under an indictment for cheating and swindling, and was convicted. His motion for a new trial was overruled, and he excepted. In the view that we take of the case, there is but one question made by the record which need be discussed here. From the motion for a new trial, it appears that the accused was arrested in Pierce county and brought to Coffee county, where he was confined in jail. He arrived in Coffee county at night, and on the following morning was brought into court for trial. He was unable, from poverty, to employ counsel, and the judge appointed an attorney of the Douglas bar to represent him. The attorney, after a consultation with the accused of not more than five minutes, reported to the court and stated in his place that the accused was not ready to go to trial; that counsel had had no opportunity to have witnesses subpoenaed, nor to examine the law under which the accusation was brought against the prisoner; and that no preparation whatever had been made for the defense. He further stated that if the court would pass the case until the following morning, in order that he might send for witnesses and prepare the defense, the accused would consent to go to trial before the court without a jury. The court then examined the accused under oath, and it is recited in the order passed on the motion "that the defendant stated under oath that he desired that the case be not tried then, but that it be continued, because he had witnesses absent; that said witnesses were nonresidents of the county of...