James v. State

1. It being shown upon the hearing of the defendant’s motion for a continuance, based upon the absence of a material witness for the defense, that the witness was beyond the jurisdiction of the court (in the United States army in France), and had not been subpoenaed, the court did not err in overruling the motion. Penal Code (1910), § 987; Boyd v. State, 17 Ga. App. 162 (86 S. E. 411); Minder v. State, 113 Ga. 772 (39 S. E. 284). This is true although the defendant stated that he expected to have the witness at the next term of the court, it not being shown that the witness had promised to…