Metts v. The State Of Ga.

• Decision Date: 31 August 1859
• Citation: 29 Ga. 271
• Parties: Hugh C. Metts, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

29 Ga. 271

Hugh C. Metts, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

AUGUST TERM, 1859.

Indictment for assault and battery, in Whitfield Superior Court. Tried before Judge Crook, April Term, 1859.

Hugh C. Metts was indicted for an assault and battery upon his wife. When the case was called for trial, he moved for a continuance on two grounds: First, because he had not had time or opportunity to prepare for trial; that indictment was found against him on Tuesday morning of this present week of the term of the court, for an offence alleged to, have been committed the Saturday before.

2d. On account of the absence of two material witnesses, residing in Whitfield county, but who had gone the day be-fore on a visit to Floyd county, and he could not have subpoenaed said witnesses since the finding of the indictment against him. That he expected to prove by said witnesses that he had not been guilty of maltreatment of his wife; that he and his wife remained together all the evening and night after the alleged difficulty, and that their conduct towards each other was kind and affectionate, and that Mrs. Metts said he had done nothing but what he ought to have done; that these witnesses were at defendant\'s house the same night.

Defendant also requested a postponement of the trial for two days, in order to send for the witnesses at his own cost, and to go to trial during the term.

The court refused to continue or postpone, and ruled defendant on to trial; to which ruling defendant excepted.

The trial proceeded, and defendant was found guilty.

Whereupon, he tendered his bill of exceptions, assigning as error the refusal to grant the continance aforesaid.

Glenn; and Milner & Parrott, for plaintiff in error.

Sol. Gen. Johnson, contra.

By the Court.—Stephens, J., delivering the opinion.

The affidavit for a continuance in this case, shows that the defendant had material evidence which was not absent by his fault. The case ought to have been continued, or the witnesses brought to court.

Judgment reversed.

CONTINUANCE "Continuances are always within the sound discretion of the court, and should be granted when the ends of justice demand the grant. Civil Code of 1895, §5138. They have been granted in civil cases when witnesses were without the jurisdiction, and no law of the State where they resided was shown to compel them to testify. 30 Ga. 816; 29 Ga. 271. Can it be that the law will allow a party to...