Case ID: ga_74/html/0840-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hall, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hatcher vs. Bowen.
    Where a party making a motion for new trial was allowed by order until a day named, and at a place designated, make out a brief of the evidence and perfect his motion for new trial, and it was required that the same should be heard at the time and place named, if nothing was done until that time, and no cause was shown why the motion had not been completed, and thé movant or his counsel failed to appear at the place named, but sent word that the latter was engaged in the trial of a capital case pending in an adjoining county and asked for a postponement, there was no error in dismissing the motion for new trial.' 59 Ga., 626.
    (a.) Absence of counsel in attendance on other courts is not a favored ground for a postponement. 72 Ga., 901; 74 Id., 220.
    
      (b.) Where exception is taken to the admission of evidence, the ground of objection thereto should be stated. 56 Ga., 444.
    
      (c.) An offer to pay a debt with a mule, not made pending any negotiations to compromise, was admissible as a direct acknowledgment of the claim. Code, §3789 and citations; 59 Get., 343 (5), 349, 350; 64. Id., 172.
    Judgment affirmed.,
    February 24, 1885.
   Hall, Justice.