Case ID: ga_91/html/0018-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pease v. The State.
    1. The absence of witnesses is no ground for setting aside a verdict when it does not appear that a continuance was asked on the ground of such absence, and it does appear that every reasonable-facility for obtaining the presence of the witnesses was extended to counsel for the accused by the presiding judge.
    2. When counsel improperly and repeatedly interrupts opposing counsel while engaged in addressing the jury, it is not error for the presiding judge to direct the former to take his seat.
    3. A new trial will not be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence the effect of which would simply be to impeach witnesses who testified against the movant at the trial, especially when it appears that by the exercise of due diligence this evidence might easily have been ascertained and the attendance of the witness procured.
    4. Alleged newly discovered evidence tending to show that the killing of the deceased by the accused was justifiable homicide in self-defence, is no ground for a new trial when the defence set up by the prisoner in his statement was killing by misadventure, and there is no affidavit in the record deposing to the credibility of the newly discovered witness, and when under all the evidence in the case there is no probability that the evidence of this witness would change the result of the former trial.
    5. There was no error in the various rulings of the court complained of; the evidence fully warranted the verdict, and a new trial was properly refused.
    
      Judgment affirmed.
    
    October 12, 1892.
    Before Judge Gober. Cobb superior court. Special term, July, 1892.
    H. B. Moss, for plaintiff in error.
    W. A. Little, attorney-general, and G. R. Brown, solicitor-general, by brief, contra.
    
   Pease was convicted of tbe murder of Housewortb. A motion for new trial was overruled, and tbe defendant excepted. Tbe bead-notes sufficiently indicate tbe grounds of tbe motion, and a further report is needless.