Case Name: L. C. Huff v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-05-13
Citations: 101 Tex. Crim. 139
Docket Number: No. 9073
Parties: L. C. Huff v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 139–142

Head Matter:
MAY, 1925.
L. C. Huff v. The State.
No. 9073.
Delivered May 13, 1925.
Rehearing granted June 17, 1925.
1 — Failing to Dip Cattle — Continuance—No Diligence — Properly Refused.
Where on a trial for failure to dip cattle as required by law, appellant who was not represented by counsel asked for process for'a witness named Lqve, whom he stated had charge of the cattle which he was charged with failing to dip, but proceeded with his trial without said witness, and without requesting a postponement, no error is shown.
' ON REHEARING
2. — Same—New Trial — Wrongfully Denied.
Where in his motion for a new trial, appellant attached to said motion an affidavit from a witness Love, to the effect that he, witness, had possession of the cattle which appellant had been convicted for failing to dip and that said cattle had been dipped by him on the same day that he was notified to dip them, the State not having controverted such affidavit, a new trial should have been granted. Following Page v. State, 94 Tex. Crim. Rep. 489 and other eases cited.
Appeal from the County Court of Gonzales County. Tried below before the Hon. J. C. Romberg, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for failing and refusing to dip cattle; penalty, a fine of $50.00.
The opinion states the case.
Horace Duncan, for appellant.
Torn Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
BAKER, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the county court of Gonzales County for failing and refusing to dip cattle after having been notified in writing to do so, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $50.00.
There is no brief on file by the appellant in this case, and the record discloses that he employed no attorney to represent him in the trial of this case until after conviction. It further appears from the motion for new trial that when the case was called for trial that the appellant requested process or subpoena for one Tom Henry Love, which it appears that the court refused to have issued. It further appears from the record that appellant made no effort to obtain testimony of this witness until the ease was called for trial and no motion was then made for postponement, but appellant then only requested the court to have process issued for said witness, and went into trial without the assistance of an attorney, as above stated.
We observe no error in the court's overruling the appellant's request in this particular as there was no diligence shown and we also observe no error in the court's refusing to grant the new trial in order to obtain the testimony of the said witness for the same reason. This appears to be the only question in the case and we fail to see any error committed by the trial court, and are of the opinion that this case should be in all things affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
Affirmed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.