Case Name: People, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. López, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1916-07-21
Citations: 24 P.R. 383
Docket Number: No. 1069
Parties: People, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. López, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: CMef Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 383–384

Head Matter:
People, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. López, Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from the District Court of Hiimacao in a Prosecution for Aggravated Assault and Battery.
No. 1069.
Decided July 21, 1916.
Postponement op Trial — Illness—Discretion op Court. — A motion to postpone a trial on the ground that the defendant was unprepared, due to his inability to notify his attorney on account of the illness of a son, who had since died, is directed to the discretion of the court. It is the burden of the appellant to prove that there was abuse of discretion or a miscarriage of justice. The motion should be verified.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Juan B. Huyke for the appellant.
Mr. Salvador Mestre, fiscal, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Me. Justice Wole
delivered the opinion of the court.
There was no brief filed in this case, but at the hearing appellant appeared through counsel to ask the reversal of the judgment because of the refusal of the court to grant a continuance. The motion for a continuance was based on the alleged fact that because of the illness of a child the defendant had been unable to notify his attorney, and that the child had since died. A refusal of this kind lies in the discretion of the court and the appellant was bound to make it appear that there was an abuse of discretion. The motion was unaccompanied by an oath and we have no idea whether the court believed the statement of the defendant or not or what reason the court had or whether the court asked the defendant other questions. It was the duty of the appellant to show us that an injustice had been committed. The case went to trial; the defendant was represented by other counsel; he brought witnesses with him from his neighborhood, and there is nothing in the record which would indicate that he did not have a fair trial. There is no error alleged or shown and the judgment must be
Affirmed.
CMef Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.