Crow v. State
| Decision Date | 17 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 33921,33921,2 |
| Citation | 70 S.E.2d 601,86 Ga.App. 11 |
| Parties | CROW v. STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Johnson & Jones, Macon, for plaintiff in error.
O. L. Long, Sol., Macon, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. United Freight Terminals v. Driver, 75 Ga.App. 571, 44 S.E.2d 156, 157.
2. Under an application of the foregoing rules, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing a continuance of the present case, where it was not made to appear upon the showing for the continuance that the absent witness had been subpoenaed, Walker v. State, 52 Ga.App. 108, 182 S.E. 524; that the witness was not absent by the permission, directly or indirectly, of the applicant, Teal v. State, 17 Ga.App. 327, 86 S.E. 739; that the defendant expected to procure the testimony of such absent witness at the next term of court, Cumby v. New Albany Box & Basket Co., 58 Ga.App. 843, 200 S.E. 307; and that such application was not made for the purpose of delay only, Sutton v. State, 70 Ga.App. 499, 28 S.E.2d, 663; and special ground of the motion for a new trial, therefore, is not meritorious.
3. The general grounds of a motion for a new trial which are not argued in this court or in the brief of counsel for the defendant, nor generally insisted upon, will be treated as abandoned. Code (Ann.), § 6-1308, and the numerous cases cited under catchword 'Abandonment' of that section.
4. The trial court's definition of a battery, 'A battery is further defined as the unlawful touching or striking of the person of another by the aggressor, done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or apprehension thereof which is not legally consented to by the other and not otherwise privileged,' of which the defendant complains in special ground 2 of the motion for a new trial, has been quoted from 4 Am.Jur. 125, § 2, by this court with approval in Brown v. State, 57 Ga.App. 864, 867, 197 S.E. 82; but whether or not the definition is technically accurate, the defendant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLendon v. State
...Hardy v. State, 117 Ga. 40(1), 43 S.E. 434; Turner v. State, 70 Ga. 765; Griffin v. State, 208 Ga. 746, 69 S.E.2d 192; Crow v. State, 86 Ga.App. 11(1), 70 S.E.2d 601. For all the foregoing reasons it is clear the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for 3. It appe......
-
Williams v. State
...discretion of the trial court. Absent a showing that it has been abused, that discretion will not be controlled. Crow v. State, 86 Ga.App. 11(1), 70 S.E.2d 601 (1952). 'There is no fixed rule as to the number of days that should, of right, be allowed counsel in a criminal case to prepare th......
-
Hill v. State
...discretion of the trial court. Absent a showing that it has been abused, that discretion will not be controlled. Crow v. State, 86 Ga.App. 11(1), 70 S.E.2d 601 (1952). "There is no fixed rule as to the number of days that should, of right, be allowed counsel in a criminal case to prepare th......
-
Mauldin v. State, 66148
...a showing of abuse that discretion will not be controlled. Hill v. State, 161 Ga.App. 346(1), 287 S.E.2d 779 (1982); Crow v. State, 86 Ga.App. 11(1), 70 S.E.2d 601 (1952). Furthermore, there is no set rule as to the number of days allowed counsel for the preparation of a criminal case. Hill......