Case Name: Fitzgerald vs. Douglass
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1878-01
Citations: 60 Ga. 335
Docket Number: 
Parties: Fitzgerald vs. Douglass.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 335–337

Head Matter:
Fitzgerald vs. Douglass.
Where a motion for new trial was made at the spring term, 1876, and time given until the second day of the next term to make out and submit a brief of the evidence, and though the case was called several times, no steps were taken to complete the record up to March, 1877, when the motion was dismissed for want of prosecution, this court will not control the discretion of the court below in refusing to reinstate it.
Practice in the Superior Court. New trial. Before Judge ITill. Bibb Superior Court. April Adjourned Term, 1877.
Reported in the decision.
Lofton & -Bartlett ; S. Hall, for plaintiff in error.
A. Proudfit ; Lyon & Nisbet, by R. II. Clark, for defendant.

Opinion:
Warner, Chief Justice.
This was a motion made in the court below to reinstate a motion for a new trial, which had been dismissed for want of prosecution. It appears from the facts recited in the judgment of the court refusing the motion to reinstate, that, at the close of the spring term of the court, 1876, the application for anew trial was made, and leave given to have a brief of the evidence made up and submitted to the court for its approval on or before the second day of the next October term of the court, which was not complied with. The case was called in its order during the first week of said October term, and no steps taken to put the case in a condition to be heard, and said case, at different times during said term, was called and passed by with like results, until in March, 1877, near the close of that term, when said case was called in its order finally and peremptorily, and still no stepshaving been taken to perfect the record, the same was dismissed for want of prosecution. The motion to reinstate it was made in July, 1877, and refused, whereupon the movant excepted. In view of the facts disclosed in the record, we will not interfere to control the exercise of the discretion of the court in refusing to reinstate the motion for a new trial.
Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.