Jones v. State

• Decision Date: 27 April 1888
• Citation: 6 S.E. 172,80 Ga. 640
• Parties: jones v. state.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

6 S.E. 172

(80 Ga. 640)

jones

v.state.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 27, 1888.

Appeal—Dismissal for Non-Appearance—Reinstatement.

Under Rule Sup. Ct. Ga., (Code, 1361,) providing that cases dismissed for want of prosecution will not be reinstated except for providential cause, a motion to reinstate a case on the ground of the engagement of plaintiff's counsel in another court will not be granted.

Error from superior court, Fulton county.

This was a motion by plaintiff to reinstate the case, dismissed for want of prosecution, upon the ground of engagement of counsel in another court. Rule of supreme court February term, 1882, (Code, 1361,) provides as follows: "On the call of cases, unless the plaintiff in error be present in person or by counsel, or by abstract and brief filed with the clerk, the case called will be dismissed, and will not be reinstated except for providential cause."

F. R. Walker, for plaintiff in error.

C. D. Hill, Sol. Gen., for defendant in error.

Bleckley, C. J. On the call of this case it was dismissed for want of prosecution, on the 20th of April. Upon the 25th of April, counsel for the plaintiff in error appeared, and moved to reinstate the case, upon his affidavit, alleging, among other things, as follows: "When said case was reached and called for trial in said supreme court, he was busily engaged preparing a case for James G. Leslie, who had just been convicted in the United States circuit court for uttering and passing counterfeit coin; said preparation having been ordered by the Honorable W. T. Newman, judge of the said court presiding, on a motion in arrest of judgment, upon certain grounds therein stated, and which motion was afterwards sustained by said court." To grant this motion would be to recognize the position that the engagement of counsel in other courts dispenses with their attendance in this court. This we can not do. The court sits here for the transaction of the public business, and those who are interested in its proceedings must give their attendance when their cases are called in their order. Providential cause has been recognized as a ground for reinstating a case after it was dismissed, but we are not aware that any other has been so recognized. Ex parte Bradley, 63 Ga. 566; Osborn v. Hale, 70 Ga. 731; Brooks v. State, 72 Ga. 899. In fact, the point is absolutely controlled by an express rule of the court. Rule Feb. term, 1882; Code, 1361. Motion denied.