Case Name: STATE v. EWELL
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1922-01-30
Citations: 150 La. 385
Docket Number: No. 24966
Parties: STATE v. EWELL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 150
Pages: 385–387

Head Matter:
(90 South. 733)
No. 24966.
STATE v. EWELL.
(Jan. 30, 1922.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
1. Criminal law &wkey;>l 144(19) — Order of entries does not destroy presumption that appeal was not granted before sentence.
Where the proceedings with regard to the sentence, the motion for appeal, and the order of appeal, were had on the same day, and recorded as contemporaneous proceedings, the fact that the clerk’s entries in the record are not in their proper order does not destroy the presumption that the judge did not grant the order of appeal before he imposed sentence, in the absence of any suspicious circumstances in the record.
On the Merits.
2. Criminal law &wkey;o595(4) — Testimony of absent witness held relevant and material in prosecution for procuring forgery.
On a trial for procuring if. to forge a check, the testimony of a bank cashier, for whose absence defendant requested a continuance, that the exact amount of the check was deposited by If. to his own credit, and that defendant did not receive any of the proceeds of the check so far as the bank records showed, was relevant and material as tending to disprove motive, especially if the case was one of circumstantial evidence.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;594(l) — That defendant previously represented by counsel held immaterial as respected motion for continuance.
Where counsel appointed by the court on the day a case was called for trial.moved for a continuance because of the absence of a material witness, the fact that defendant, who was indicted five days before trial, was represented by counsel when put in jail, was of no importance where such counsel had withdrawn from the ease.
4. Criminal law t&wkey;594( I) — Motion for continuance because of absence of witness held improperly denied.
Where defendant was placed on trial on 'the fifth day after his indictment, and the request then made for a continuance because of the absence of a material witness was the only request made, and the postponement would not have caused serious delay or interference in the administration of justice, while it was not certain that its refusal did not cause injustice, the request should have been granted.
Appeal from Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Feliciana; Jos. L. Colson, Judge.
John P. Ewell was convicted of being an' accessory to the crime of forgery, and- he appeals.
Verdict and sentence annulled, and case remanded.
Ponder & Ponder, of Franklinton, for appellant.
A. y. Coco, Atty. Gen., and H. H. Kilbourne, Dist. Atty., of Clinton (T. S. Walmsley, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
O'NIELL, J.
The attorneys representing the state, averring that the order of appeal in this case was granted before the sentence was imposed, move to dismiss the appeal. The minutes of the court do not show, affirmatively, that the order of appeal was granted before the sentence was imposed. The proceedings with regard to the sentence, t-he motion for appeal, and order of appeal were had on the same day, and were recorded as contemporaneous proceedings. The fact that the clerk's entries in the record are not in their proper order does not destroy the presumption that the judge did not grant the order of appeal before he had imposed sentence upon the appellant. "Omnia pr£e-sumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta."
In the case of State v. Sisemore (No. 24644) 151 La. —, 92 South. 274, which was remanded for a correction of the minutes, etc., it appeared that the record had been tampered with. The original entry showed that the appeal had been asked for and granted "before sentence," and the word "before" was stricken out and the word "after" written over it. There is no such suspicious circumstance in the present case. The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore overruled.