Case Name: CLIFF v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-11-07
Citations: 261 S.W. 144
Docket Number: No. 7859
Parties: CLIFF v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 261
Pages: 144–145

Head Matter:
CLIFF v. STATE.
(No. 7859.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 7, 1923.
Rehearing Denied May 7, 1924.)
1. Statutes <&wkey;>l07(l) — Act amending intoxicating liquor law held not to relate to more than one subject.
Act amendatory to Acts 36th Leg. 2d Called Sess. (1919) c. 78, § 31, and Acts 1913, c. 7, § 1 (Vernon’s Ann. Code Cri Proc. 1916, art. 865b), being Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, arts. 588% to 588% a4, 588% o, and whose entire subject-matter related to amending intoxicating liquor laws, held not open to objection that it related to more than one subject.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal law @=3598(3) — Refusal of continuance for absent witness held without error.
Where defendant knew some time before trial that absent witness had left the state, and made no effort to obtain his deposition, there was no error in refusal of continuance.
<g=3Eor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from District Court, Jones County; W. R. Chapman, Judge.
Ed Cliff was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Lon A. Brooks, of Anson, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district couyt of Jones county of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
There are two bills of exception in the record, one complaining of tire overruling of appellant's motion to quash the indictment, and the other presenting his objection to the court's refusal of a continuance.
The continuance was sought for the absence' of John Miller, who was alleged to have gone out of the state since he was served with a subpoena. In regard to this it appears from the testimony of Miller's father, who was introduced as a witness in behalf of appellant, that John Miller had gone to the state of California, and is now residing there. No effort is reflected by the record to obtain his depositioi. It is made to appear that appellant learned that Miller had gone from Texas some time before the trial. Our law provides a way in which the testimony of one who is permanently out of the state may be .secured on behalf of one accused of crime, but he is not absolved from the use of due diligence in getting same. The motion to quash the indictment seems to present no new matter. It presents the question that the amendment to section 31, chapter 78, of the Second Called Session of the Thirty-Sixth Legislature by chapter 61, Acts 37th Leg. 1st and 2d Sess. is null and void, because of the alleged fact that the bill undertakes, not only to amend said chapter, but also undertakes to amend article 865b, Vernon's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916 (Acts of 1913, c. 7, § 1). See Vernon's Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, arts. 588% to 588%a4, 58S%o. We are cited to no authorities holding in accord with the contention made by appellant, and none are known to us. We would not think a bill whose entire subject-matter related to amending the law relative to intoxicating liquors would be open to the objection made to this amendment, to wit, that it related to more than one subject. The other questions raised by appellant in his motion to quash have all been settled against him by decisions of this court.
Finding no error in the record, an af-firmance will be ordered.