Case Name: HUFF v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-05-13
Citations: 274 S.W. 567
Docket Number: No. 9073
Parties: HUFF v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 274
Pages: 567–568

Head Matter:
HUFF v. STATE.
(No. 9073.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 13, 1925.
Rehearing Granted June 17, 1925.)
Criminal law <©==917(2) — Refusal to grant motion for new trial held error.
Where defendant was convicted for refusing to dip cattle when notified, and trial was had three days after arrest, and there were at time of trial 95 cases on doeke't which had precedence over defendant’s, and it appeared that defendant went to trial without counsel, and made oral request for subpoena to secure witness, and for postponement until service could be had, held, refusal to grant new trial was error, when motion was accompanied by affidavit stating that cattle had been dipped within a few hours after time notice required.
Commissioners’ Decision.
Appeal from Gonzales County Court; J. C. Romberg, Judge.
L. C. Huff was convicted for refusing to dip cattle after having been notified to do so, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Horace Duncan, of Gonzales, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BAKER, J.
.Appellant was convicted in the county court of Gonzales county for failing and refusing to dip cattle after having been notified in writing to do so, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $50.
There is no brief on file by the appellant in this case, and the record discloses that he employed no attorney to represent him in the trial of this case until after conviction. It further appears from \;he motion for new trial that when the case was called for trial that the appellant requested process or subpoena for one Tom Henry Love, which it appears that the court refused to have issued. It further appears from the record that appellant made no effort to obtain testimony of this witness until the case was called for trial, and no motion was then made for postponement, but appellant then only requested the court to have process issued for said witness, and went into trial without the assistance of an attorney, as above stated. "
We observe no error in tfie court's overruling the appellant's request in this particular, as there was no diligence shown, and we also observe no error in the court's refusing to grant the new trial in order to obtain the testimony of the said witness for the same reason. This appears to be the only question in the case, and we fail to see any error committed by the trial court, and are of the opinion that this case should be in all things affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
PER OURIAM.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the court.
<g=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes