Case Name: HALL v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-11-18
Citations: 279 S.W. 464
Docket Number: No. 9415
Parties: HALL v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 279
Pages: 464–466

Head Matter:
HALL v. STATE.
(No. 9415.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 18, 1925.
Rehearing Granted Jan. 20, 1926.)
W. W. Ballew, of Corsicana, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.

Opinion:
BERRY, J.
The appellant was convicted in the district court of Navarro county for the offense of theft and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.
A recital of the testimony is not deemed necessary, but it is sufficient to say that the facts are entirely sufficient to support the verdict.
There are hut two hills of exception in the record. One complains at the action of the trial court in refusing to grant appellant a cohtin nance on account of the absence of his counsel. The motion for continuance was on account of the absence of the firm of Puckett, Fagan & Lee, who, according to bhe court's qualification of the bill, through their associate, Mr. Lee, had already withdrawn from the case. Under this state of the record, it is manifest that no error was committed by the trial court in overruling the application for a continuance or postponement of the trial.
The other bill of exceptions in the record complains, in a little different form, at the court's action in overruling this application, and, from what has already been said, it follows that in our opinion, no error is shown by the court's action with reference thereto.
The indictment being in proper form and no error being manifested by the record, it is our opinion that the judgment should be in all things affirmed.
PER CURIAM. 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.