The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-05-25

f1OGhE V. LITE
 Indictment for grand larceny-Ap-
 peal from the Circuit Court of Col
 bert.
 i. Trial and it's incidents: appliGa-
 tion for continuance on account of ab-
 sent witness; when not revisable<-An
 application for a continuance in a
 criminal case cn account of absent
 witnesses, is addressed to the discretion
 of the .rial court, and its refusal Is
 not revisable on appeal, unless 1t Is plainly shown that there was an abuse of such discretion by the trial court. 2. Same; same; when continuance properly disallowed.-Where an appli- cation for continuance is made by the defendant in d criminal case on account of the absence of some ot his witnesses, and the State limits the showing made hy the defendant as to what the absent witnesses would testi- fy, if present, and there are disclosed no facts which show that the absence of the witnesses is prejudicial to tfse dc efendant, the refusal of the applica- tion for a continuance is not erroneous. 3. Same: witnesses put under the rule; exercise of discretion by the court not revisable.-Where the rule for the exclusion of witnesses from the court room Is invoked, 1t is within the sound discretion of the court to allow any one of the witnesses to remain in the court room during the examination of the others; and the exercise of this discretion is not reviewable on appeal. 4. Same; argument of counsel: right of court to limit argument.-Tne constitutional guaranty that in crini- nal prosecutions "the accused has the right to be heard by himself and coun- Atk tr- n0f ft,fts ynd hxrf ha court exercising the power to regulate his right of/argument by reasonable rules and limitation; and in a case where the evidence is not voluminous and intricate ,and the law is plain. a limitation of the argument of counsel for defedant to one hour and a half is not an unreasonable exercise of the discretion of the court and constitutes no error.
 D. Larceny; competency of evidence as to existence of a warrant without producing it.--On a trial under an in- dictment for larceny, where a witness who was shown to be a constable and to have been charged with the duty of arresting the defendant. testified that he went ito designated place to look for and arrest the defendant and that he made inquiries for him. the
 
 he had a warrant for the defendant is not incompetent and subject to be ex- cluded on the ground that the warrant itself was the best evidence.
 6. Charge of court to jury; properly refused when giving undue prominence to part of the evidence.-A charge re- quested by the defendant in criminal case, which singles out and gives special prominence to a part of the evidence is properly refused.
 [. Larceny; conspiracy; charge of court to jury.-On a trial under an in- dictment for larceny of COW. where there is evidence tending to show a conspiracy between the defendant and another person to steal and dispose Of the COW, a charge which ignores this tendency of the evidence and predi- cates the defendants right of acquittal upon the fact that the COW was taken and disposed of by such other person is
 erroneous and properly refused.
 S. Same; same: same.-In such
 case, a charge which instructs the jury
 that if they have "a reasonable doubt
 as to whether this defendant or" the
 other person who the evidence tends
 to show conspired with the defendant to steal and dispose of the COW 'took
 the COW. With the intent to stel 1t, then
 it is your duty to acquit the defendant"
 is erroneuos and properly refused.
 9. Same; same; same.-In such q
 case, a charge which instruct the jutG
 that if they believe from the evidence
 that the defendant had good reason
 to believe that the COW was the prop
 erty of Watson between whom and
 the defendant there was evidence tend
 ind to show there was conspiracy to
 s.ea,, affsts, dispose Of the COW their ver-
 dict should be for the defendant" is
 erroneous and properly refused.
 Affirmed.
 Oninion bv Haralson J.