Stamper v. State, (No. 9432.)

• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
• Citation: 95 S.E. 266,21 Ga.App. 798
• Docket Number: (No. 9432.)
• Parties: STAMPER. v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 06 March 1918

21 Ga.App. 798

95 S.E. 266

STAMPER.
v.
STATE.

(No. 9432.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia,
Division No. 2.

March 6, 1918.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Ben Hill County; D. A. R Crum, Judge.

Jack Stamper was convicted of fornication and adultery, his motion for new trial was overruled, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Stamper was indicted for the offense of fornication and adultery, and was convicted. He made a motion for a new trial upon the general grounds, and also upon the ground that the court erred in overruling his motion for a continuance, in which he set up that he had just been arrested and brought into court and that he had not time to get his witnesses and had not had time to consult his lawyer about the case against him; that he wanted Mrs. Barnes as a witness, and expected to show by her that he did not commit adultery with her; that he also wanted Butterworth as a witness, and expected to show by Butterworth that he (the accused) had not

[95 S.E. 267]

been away from the tent long enough to have gone to the place where the state's witnesses would testify that he had gone; that he also wanted Graham as a witness, and expected to show by Graham that he (the accused) did not go to the Ocilla Southern Railroad, where the offense of said adultery was said to have been committed; that he had not had the witnesses subpoenaed, because he had not had time; that he was committed to this court under bail by Justice Luke, that the defendant's attorney had not had time to confer with him since the indictment was returned, which was late the afternoon before or early in the morning of that day; that this was the first the attorney knew of the indictment, and he was not prepared to try the case at that time, but would be ready for trial on the following morning; that the attorney had been engaged on cases in court, and had not had time to prepare this case, as the bill of indictment had just been returned, and the defendant had just been brought into the courtroom. In a note appended to the motion the court stated that it appeared, on the showing for a postponement that the defendant had been bound over to that term of the court on the same charge as that upon which he was indicted, that none of the witnesses referred to by the defendant had been subpoenaed, and that the court sent an automobile for Mrs. Barnes, the material witness, and that she reached the court and testified for the defendant on the trial. The court overruled the...