Court Opinion

ID: 9847959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:10:35.240201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:50.948218
License: Public Domain

Pannell, Judge.
This is an appeal in a civil action from a final judgment rendered against appellant in the State Court of Habersham County. The order of the court, enumerated as error, contains the entire facts of the case insofar as they appear from the record before this court. The order reads as follows: "The above stated case was called for trial on April 18, 1972, with the plaintiff and his counsel and the defendant’s counsel being present, and attorneys for both parties announced ready, and thereafter the defendant’s counsel requested that a court reporter be present. Pursuant to said request the court determined that the regular court reporter for the Mountain Judicial Circuit, which court reporter is also the regular court reporter for the State Court of Habersham County, could be in court in approximately an hour to an hour and a half. The court thereupon stated that it did not consider it to be a legal responsibility of the court to have a reporter present, and further that no party in advance of the beginning of the trial had requested that such a reporter be present; and the court under these circumstances stated that the case would proceed, to which statement there was no exception made by either party. *334In fact, the court reporter did not arrive in court until after the testimony in the case and all the evidence had been completed.” (Emphasis supplied.) Held:
Argued September 8, 1972
Decided September 27, 1972
Rehearing denied October 17, 1972.
McClure, Ramsay & Struble, Robert B. Struble, for appellant.
1. The rules of practice and procedure that are applicable to the Superior Courts of this State are "the rules which govern practice and procedure of the” State Court of Habersham County. See Section 8 of the Act approved March 24, 1970 (Ga. L. 1970, pp. 679, 681).
2. Both parties announced ready for trial (see Rule 41 of the convention of Judges of the Superior Court adopted December 4, 1936; Code Ann. § 24-3341, being substantially the same as Rule 21, §24-3320 in the Code of 1933) apparently without any reservations, and without any determination with reference to whether or not the court reporter was present. And appellant sought no delay or continuance when he discovered the reporter would not be present for an hour and a half, which he could have discovered before announcing ready. Even had appellant made a motion for continuance after announcing ready for trial, there would have been no abuse of discretion in refusing such a motion. See Hunter v. Jones, 36 Ga. App. 816 (2) (138 SE 263); Payne v. Ormond, 44 Ga. 514 (1); Fisher v. State, 93 Ga. 309 (3) (20 SE 329).

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, J., concurs. Hall, P. J., concurs specially.