Barnard v. State

Decided September 16, 1884

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1884-09-16

A defendant, indicted for carrying concealed weapons, moved for a continuance, and made a showing, to the effect that he had subpoenaed one Mrs. Hale; that she was not absent by his consent or procurement; that she lived in the county, was at home sick, and unable to attend court; that he expected to procure her at-: tendance at the next term of court; that the showing was not made for delay; and that he could prove by her that she was present at the time he was charged in the indiciment with carrying the pistol concealed; that it was not concealed, but was in the little watch-pocket on the outside of his coat, and that the handle and a portion of the barrel were fully exposed to view, when he dropped it and put it back in his pocket at the table. There was no counter-showing: .Held, that the continuance should have been granted, and its refusal was error. Code,' §§3522, 4647. da.) From the certificate of the presiding judge to the motion lor new trial, it appears that he acted under a misapprehension of the facts when he refused the motion ■(6.) The testimony was conflicting and quite evenly balanced, and it is impossible to say what influence the evidence of the absent witness might have had. •Jackson, C. J., concurred specially, on the ground that the certificate of the presiding judge showed thathe had misunderstood the facts, and that this was not the ordinary case of the exercise of discretion.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Judgment reversed · Decided 1884-09-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1923

4 state decisions

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 →

Hall, Justice.

¶1[To the report contained- in the decision, it is only necessary to add that, in certifying the grounds of the motion for new trial, the court added the following note :

“When the motion was overruled, the court stated that the court ■did so because the case was puton terms.at last court, had been then •continued on account of absence of same witness, and, as court recalled when motion was reached this term, defendant was offered a rule against witness, and declined it last term, and court notified ■counsel case would not be continued for absence of this witness again. But now the court is satisfied that the case was not on terms, but «continued because witness was sick last term.”]