Court Opinion

ID: 5611016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-11 03:59:50.552567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:06.474371
License: Public Domain

Harwell, J.
1. The defendant’s motion for a continuance on account of absent witnesses failing to conform to the statutory requirements (Penal Code (1910), § 987; Civil Code, § 5715), the court did not err in overruling the motion.
2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial. See, in this connection, Littlefield v. State (case No. 9793), ante, 782.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodmorth, J., concur.