Case Name: MEADOWS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-02-26
Citations: 154 S.W. 546
Docket Number: 
Parties: MEADOWS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 154
Pages: 546–547

Head Matter:
MEADOWS v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 26, 1913.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 597*) — Continuance— Absent Witnesses.
Where tbe testimony and admissions of accused justified the court in believing that none-of tbe absent witnesses would testify as claimed, or that their .testimony would either be-true or change the result, a continuance was-properly refused.
[Ed. Note. — For. other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1331, 1332; Dec. Dig. §: 597.*]
2. Criminal Law (§ 784*) — 'Trial—Instructions— Circumstantial Evidence.
In a prosecution for theft of mules, where-accused’s admissions and testimony showed that be took them at the time and place they were stolen, and he was a few hours later caught in possession of them some miles away, a charge on circumstantial evidence was unnecessary.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1883-1888, 1922, I960;-Dec. Dig. § 784.*]
Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Richard I. Munroe, Judge.
T. E. Meadows, alias S. S. Manning, was convicted of theft, and be appeals.
Affirmed.
Lester & Taylor, of Waco, for appellant. O. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, J.
Appellant was convicted of the theft of two mules, and his punishment fixed at four years' confinement in the penitentiary. The evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict.
The application for a continuance shows such a lack of diligence to procuré the attendance of witnesses as to justify the court in overruling it. Giles v. State, 148 S. W. 317. Besides, the testimony, admissions, and statements of the appellant himself are so unreasonable, contradictory, and confusing as to clearly justify the court to believe none of the claimed absent witnesses, none of whom had ever been subpoenaed, would testify as claimed by him, and, if they had, that their testimony would not probably be true, and would not have changed the result of the trial.
The court did not err in not giving appellant's requested charge on circumstantial evidence. The admissions and testimony of the appellant himself unquestionably show that he took the mules at the time and place they were stolen, and he was, within two or three hours thereafter, caught in the actual possession thereof some 12 or 14 miles from where he had taken them. It is only when the case is proven by circumstantial evidence alone that a charge on circumstantial evidence is necessary. Section 813, subd. 2, p. 531, White Code Or. Proc.
The court gave a full and fair charge in the ease, submitting every issue in any way raised by the testimony, all of which was found against appellant, with the amplest evidence to support it.
The judgment is affirmed.