Case Name: The State of Louisiana vs. Abe Venables
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1888-03
Citations: 40 La. Ann. 215
Docket Number: No. 10,102
Parties: The State of Louisiana vs. Abe Venables.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 215–215

Head Matter:
No. 10,102.
The State of Louisiana vs. Abe Venables.
To entitle an accused {o a continuance on the ground of tlie absence of a witness, he must show due diligence to procure the testimony; and the continuance was properly refused where no subpoena issued for the witness until the ease was called for trial, although the witness resided in the town or city where the court was held.
Motions fcr new trials are left largely to the discretion of the trial judge, and unless the record mates it apparent that his discretion has been unwisely or arbitrarily exercised, his rulings thereon will not be disturbed.
A PPEAL from the Seventeenth District Court, Parish of East r\ Baton Rouge. Burgess, J.
ilf. J. Cunningham, Attorney General, and L. B. Beale, District Attorney, for the State, Appellee.
Buehner & Moore for Defendant and Appellant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
The defendant was convicted "of shooting with intent to commit murder," and appeals from a sentence of two years' imprisonment at hard labor.
1. His first complaint is the refusal "of the judge to grant him a continuance on the ground of the absence of a material witness.
We find from the record that the witness was not subpoenaed until the cause was called for trial.
It is manifest that due diligence was not shown, and for this reason the trial judge very properly overruled the motion.
2. He complains of the refusal of the judge to grant him a new trial.
The ground of the motion was that of newly discovered evidence, supported alone by the affidavit of the accused. The overruling of the motion was not excepted to.
We find no reason to conclude that the discretion of the trial judge in refusing the motion was not wisely exercised.
Rulings on motions of this hind, which the law leaves so largely to the discretion of the judge, will not be disturbed unless it is made apparent by the record that this discretion was abused and there was an arbitrary use of judicial authority.
Judgment affirmed.