Case Name: FRENCH v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-04-15
Citations: 272 S.W. 195
Docket Number: No. 7853
Parties: FRENCH v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 272
Pages: 195–197

Head Matter:
FRENCH v. STATE.
(No. 7853.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 15, 1925.
Rehearing Denied May 20, 1925.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;597(l) — Not error to deny continuance, wherei testimony of absent witness is improbable.
If testimony of absent character witness is entirely improbable, it is not error to deny continuance for purpose of procuring testimony of such witness.
, On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;9l8(9) — ¡Voluntary absence of accused from courtroom not ground for new trial.
It is not ground for new trial, under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 837, that accused, who was on bond, voluntarily absented himself from courtroom while his attorney was arguing a motion, where he did not show that absence was without counsel’s or court’s consent, and he waited until after rendition of verdict against him before making objection.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Travis County; James R. Hamilton, Judge.
Tas French was, convicted of keeping and being interested in keeping premises for use in storing and manufacturing intoxicating liquor and he appeals.
Affirmed.
J. F. Hair, of San Antonio, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, -for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Travis com ty of keeping and being interested in keeping bis premises for use in storing and manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and bis punishment fixed at two years in tbe penitentiary.
Tbis is a companion case to cause No. 7851, Tas French v. State, original opinion November 19, 1924, motion for rebearing overruled January 14, 1925, 267 S. W. 494, and most of tbe questions raised bere were decided adversely to appellant's contention in tbe opinion in that case.
Tbe indictment was attacked in this case for the same reasons advanced in tbe companion case referred to, and the-jury wheel law by means of which the panel of tbe jury were selected was also attacked.
Appellant sought a continuance on account of tbe absence of. certain character witnesses and one Dolon Menefee. Tbe record so clearly manifests tbe entire improbability of tbe truth of tbe testimony stated as expected from said absent witness that no eiror is manifested in the court's action in regard to tbe overruling of the continuance or tbe motion for new trial based in part on the refusal of said continuance. Appellant sought a severance, but tbe facts stated are not deemed by us to entitle him to tbe same.
Officers conducted a raid upon tbe prémises of appellant, and, found two stills, giving every evidence of use, and in tbe bouse, barns, outhouses,' blacksmith shop, ben nests, prickly pear bushes, and other places around tbe premises • found large' quantities of whisky. While they were at tbe house appellant appeared. Appellant's statements in regard to tbe making of whisky were given in testt-mony by persons other than the-officers. Tbe evidence is deemed amply sufficient to support tbe judgment.
Some objections were made during .the trial, but we have been unable to perceive error in any of .the matters complained of. A very voluminous and lengthy motion for new trial was made, and complaint was there -presented of misconduct of tbe jury, but tbe court heard evidence regarding each question raised in the motion, and these matters have been considered by us and are not deemed of sufficient interest to set out at length. We have concluded no error appears in any of same.
Tbe record is very voluminous, much of same consisting of the presentation of tbe .same question from different angles and tbe •repetition of things, such as lengthy motions -to sever, to continue, to quash indictments, and other parts of the record in such intricate manner as to cause tbe court needless trouble in trying to comprehend the various questions presented.
There is no brief on file for tbe appellant, and as best we can we have examined and digested tbe various propositions, and finding no error in the record, tbe judgment will be affirmed.
other cases see same topio and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes