Rothleutner v. Bateman

Beck, J. 1. All applications for continuances are addressed to the sound discretion of the court. And it not appearing that the discretion of the trial court in refusing a continuance in the instant case was abused, the exception to the denial of a new trial because of such refusal is without merit. 2. As is recognized by the plaintiff in error and shown by the bill of ex [104] ceptions, tlie adverse ruling upon the motion for a continuance is controlling; and that ruling having been sustained, the judgment of the court below is September 17, 1915. Action for damages. Before Judge Ellis.. Fulton superior court. June 26, 1914. Anderson & Anderson and P. B. D’Orr, for plaintiff. George Westmoreland, for defendant. Affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.