Roth v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtGardner, J.
The only assignment of error is that the court abused its discretion in not granting a continuance of the case. A motion for continuance is always addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling thereon will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly abused. Sealy v. State, 1 Ga. 213 (44 Am. D. 641); Lipscomb v. State, 58 Ga. 608. “The presiding judge has a discretion in ordering the business of his court and determining whether it is proper to postpone a case or not; and it is only in instances of flagrant abuse in the exercise of such discretion that this court will…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Harris v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Kelloy v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1921
- Wall v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Sealy v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1846
- Hilton v. HaynesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1918
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Vaughn v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972
- Waters v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
- McKenzie v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1945
- Tyree v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1946
- Vaughn v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972