
    18006.
    Crowe v. The State.
    Criminal Law, 16 O. J. p. 451, n. 91; p. 452, n. 95, 96, 97; p. 482, n. 1; p. 511, n. 31.
   Broyles, C. J.

1. “Motions for continuance, made at the term at which the indictment is found, while addressed to the discretion of the court, stand upon a different footing from such motions made at a subsequent term. In such eases the discretion of the court should be liberally exercised in favor of a fair trial, no less than that the trial should be speedy; and every facility should be afforded a defendant for presenting his defense as fully as he might be able to do were the case tried at a subsequent term. Reasonable opportunity for the defendant to prepare his defense should not be sacrificed in the interest of speed.” Brooks v. State, 3 Ga. App. 458 (3) (60 S. E. 211); Waldrip v. State, 34 Ga. App. 692 (130 S. E. 829).

2. Under the above-stated ruling and the facts of this case, the court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for a continuance, and that error rendered nugatory the further proceedings in the case.

Decided May 11, 1927.

"Violating liquor law; from Taliaferro superior court — Judge Perryman. February 14, 1927.

Hawes Cloud, Hugh E. Combs, Noel P. Park, for plaintiff in error.

M. L. Felts, solicitor-general, J. A. Beazley, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.  