Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

53 Ga. 149

Shivers v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided July 15, 1874

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1874-07-15

<p>1. Upon the trial of a tax cellector for embezzlement, transcripts from the books of the comptroller general and treasurer of the state, certified under section 3316 of the Code, are admissible in evidence to show a failure on the part of such defendant to pay over the taxes collected by him.</p> <p>2. A moiion for a continuance based on the ground that the indictment had been found only two days before the case was called for trial, and that the defendant’s counsel had been constantly engaged in the business of the court to the exclusion of any opportunity of preparing the case, or even of consulting withjhis client, was properly overruled, it appearing that the defendant had been arrested under a warrant at the previous term of the court, and was then as fully informed of the nature of the accusation, as he was after the indictment was found.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 1971

7 state decisions

1018741880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Warner, Chief Jusfcice.

¶1The defendant was indicted for the offense of embezzlemen and on the trial thereof was found guilty by the jury. A motion was made for a new trial, on the several grounds alleged therein, which was overruled by the court, and the defendant excepted. Two grounds of error only have been insisted on here: First, the refusal of the court to grant the defendant a continuance on the showing made therefor; and second, in admitting in evidence the certified copies of the record books of the state treasurer and comptroller general, the defendant insisting that he was entitled to be confronted with the witnesses testifying against him, and that, in allowing the certified copies of the records kept by those officers to be read in evidence, the defendant was deprived of a constitutional right. By the law of this state, the certificate of any public officer thereof, of any record, document, paper on file, or other matter or tiling in their respective offices, or appertaining thereto, is admissible in evidence in any court of this state: Code, section 3816. The mistake of the plaintiff in error in this case consists in the assumption that the certificates of the treasurer and comptroller general as to what appears on the records of their respective offices is the personal testimony of those officers, whereas, they only certify what appears on the records of their office. They were not personally Examined as witnesses against the defendant. If they had been offered as witnesses against the defendant at the trial, they would necessarily have been required to testify in open court; their-.testimony could not have been taken by interrogatories. From the explanatory. note of the presiding judge, and in view of the facts contained in the showing for a continuance, the defendant had reasonable time and opportunity to have prepared his defense. As a general rule, the court before which the case is tried will be allowed a liberal discretion as to the continuance of cases, and this court will not interfere with it, unless it has been manifestly abused and injustice done.

¶2Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.

/53/ga/149 · .json · Public domain