Case Name: J. D. Hogan et al. v. J. R. Burleson et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 35
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. D. Hogan et al. v. J. R. Burleson et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 35–37

Head Matter:
AUSTtS SESSION, OCTOBER, 1860.
J. D. Hogan et al. v. J. R. Burleson et al.
The filing by a party to a suit of interrogatories addressed to a witness residing in another county, a few days after the institution of the suit, without further steps to have the testimony taken until eighteen months thereafter, and then (sixteen days only before the cause was called for trial) filing interrogatories a second time to take the testimony of the same witness, show no diligence to procure it; and it was not error to overrule an application to continue the cause which rested upon the want of that testimony.
If the party seeking a continuance had in fact used reasonable efforts to procure the testimony of the witness, and had been unsuccessful because the witness had changed his place of residence, or for any other cause, the facts should be stated in his application; and where he has failed to do so, the statement of them in support of a motion for new trial will not avail him.
Appeal from Bastrop. Tried below before Hon. A. W. Terrell, one of the district judges. Suit brought by the appellees against the appellants.
The affidavit of the defendant, Hogan, in support of his application for a continuance of the cause, for the want of the testimony of the witness James A. Poage, alleged his residence to be in Limestone county; that he had used due diligence to procure his testimony by propounding interrogatories to him, obtained a commission to take the same, which he mailed to a proper officer, paying postage, enclosing money to pay the fees, &c.
This application was overruled by the court; trial; ver diet, and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants moved for a new trial, on the ground of the alleged error of the court to grant them a continuance, which motion was supported by the affidavit of defendant, Hogan, that for the year next preceding the filing of his last interrogatories to the witness, Poage, he did not know of the residence of said witness. That motion was also overruled. These rulings are assigned as error; the other facts appear from the opinion.
G. G. §• A. D. McGinnis, for the appellants.
George W. Jones, for the appellees.

Opinion:
Bell, J.
—The only question presented by the record is, whether or not the district court erred in overruling the motion of the defendants to continue the cause.
The petition was filed in the court below on the 5th of March, A. D. 1856. On the 17th day of the same month, the defendants filed interrogatories addressed to James A.' Poage, alleged to be a resident of Freestone county." On the 8th day of October, A. D. 1857, the defendants moved for a continuance of the cause, for want of the testimony of the said James A. Poage, alleged in the application to be a citizen of Limestone county. The record discloses that interrogatories addressed to James A. Poage were a second time filed by the defendants, on the 22d day of September, A. D. 1857, about sixteen days before the motion to continue the cause was made. The application for the continuance' showed no diligence on the part of the defendants to procure the testimony of the witness Poage, and the motion to continue was, therefore, properly overruled by the court.
The affidavit which accompanied the motion for a new trial furnished no ground upon which the court could properly have sustained that motion. If the defendants had in fact used reasonable efforts to procure the testimony of Poage, and had been unsuccessful, because the witness had changed his place of residence, or for any other cause, the facts should have been stated in the application.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with damages for the delay.
Judgment aeeirmed.