Case ID: tex-crim_100/html/0653-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, Judge. —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

W. B. Andrews v. The State.
    No. 8684.
    Delivered June 24, 1924.
    Bequest to File Second Motion for Rehearing, Denied.
    In our opinion on rehearing, the merit of appellant’s application for continuance was considered and we stated that the question was not brought forward by bill of exceptions. This was a mistake. The portion of the opinion on rehearing stating that no bill was reserved to the ruling relative to the requested continuance, has been eliminated therefrom. Having made this correction this application will be denied.
    Appeal from the District Court of Van Zandt County. Tried below before the Hon. Joel R. Bond, Judge.
    On request for leave to file second motion for rehearing.
    
      Wyne & Wyne, for appellant.
    
      Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State's Attorney, for the State.
   ON REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND MOTION FOR REHEARING.

HAWKINS, Judge. —

In our opinion on rehearing the merit of appellant’s application for continuance was considered, but we stated that the question was not brought forward by bill of exception. In the reguest to file second motion attention is called to our error in this regard. The application for continuance was copied twice in the record, being embraced one time in a bill of exception and the other time not in the form of a bill. This caused our mistake. The portion of the opinion on rehearing stating that no bill was reserved to the ruling relative to the requested continuance has been eliminated therefrom. Having made this correction, this application will be denied.

Denied.