Case Name: KRENEK v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-10-07
Citations: 282 S.W. 591
Docket Number: No. 8989
Parties: KRENEK v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 282
Pages: 591–593

Head Matter:
KRENEK v. STATE.
(No. 8989.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 7, 1925.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1926.
Second Motion for Rehearing Denied April 26, 1926.)
De Witt Bowner and W. W. Hair, both of Temple, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BAKER, J.
The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted in the district court of Milam county for the offense of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at 12 months' confinement in the penitentiary.
This appeal is predicated upon bills of exceptions 2, 3, and 4. Appellant complains of the action of the trial court in refusing his application to postpone his trial for the testi mony of Dr. W. R. Newton. The record discloses that Dr. Newton was resident citizen of Milam county, had been for many years, but was in Chicago temporarily taking lectures, that four of appellant's children were suffering with whooping cough, and that he consulted said witness, Dr. Newton, and was advised by him to get whisky for them, or that whisky would be good for them, and, after some effort to buy whisky, in which he failed, he was making or attempting to make intoxicating liquor when the officers arrested him. The application for postponement, and contest by the state show that the indictment was filed January 9, 1924, and on January 11th following, the case was set for trial on February 20, 1924, and, by agreement between counsel for state and defendant, counsel for defendant was notified of the date for trial on 11th of January, 1924, and said counsel for defendant had subpoena issued for said witness Dr. Newton of January 14, 1924, which was not executed because said witness on said date had left home for Chicago. When this case was called for trial on February 20,1924, a countinuance was granted to defendant for the -want of the testimony of said witness Newton. The case was called again for trial on March 20th, and appellant made said application for a postponement of said trial to obtain the said testimony of said witness Dr. Newton, which alleged from information of his wife that he was supposed to have returned a week prior to March 26, 1924, and was expected now to return home about April 10, 1924, to which time appellant was seeking to have said trial postponed. The record further discloses that, subsequent to the date of consulting Dr. Newton relative to obtaining whisky, some time thereafte'r Dr. Hubert was called to attend said children and prescribed whisky for them.
The state's contest to said postponement shows that the trial court in grañting the first application for this witness admonished appellant's counsel to take his depositions, and we presume that the court refused to postpone same because of a failure to do so. The statute does not authorize the taking of depositions of resident witnesses temporarily out of the state. Vernon's C. C. P. art. 818. In the case of Mooney v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 344, 273 S. W. 257, and cases therein cited, this court held that the appellant was entitled to the testimony of a physician to show he prescribed and advised whisky for him. After a careful consideration of this bill, we have concluded the postponement should have been granted, or a new trial awarded to appellant, in view of the testimony adduced upon the trial of this case, showing the materiality of the testimony of Dr. Newton.
In bill of exception No. 3, complaint is made to the refusal of the court to instruct a verdict of acquittal. We are unable to agree to the contention made by counsel in this particular.
Appellant complains in bill 4 on account of the court refusing his motion to require the state to elect upon which of the two counts in the indictment it would rely for conviction. There is no merit in this contention, and there could not possibly be any error .in this instance, as the verdict was returned on the second count.
For the error above mentioned, we are • forced to hold that this case should be reversed. Reversed and remanded.