State v. Strong
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Seventeenth District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge. Burgess, J. When the trial judge refuses a continuance for want of due diligence in procuring the attendance of absent witnesses, his ruling will not he disturbed, unless it clearly appear that his discretion has been abused. 37 Ann. 128, 774, 786 ; 31 Ann. 179, 408; 34 Ann, 381; 34 Ann. 679 ; 36 Ann. 15J, 852, 872. As non-resident witnesses can be summoned or attached in vacation (R..
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Seventeenth District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge. Burgess, J. When the trial judge refuses a continuance for want of due diligence in procuring the attendance of absent witnesses, his ruling will not he disturbed, unless it clearly appear that his discretion has been abused. 37 Ann. 128, 774, 786 ; 31 Ann. 179, 408; 34 Ann, 381; 34 Ann. 679 ; 36 Ann. 15J, 852, 872. As non-resident witnesses can be summoned or attached in vacation (R.. S. 1020), it is not duo diligence for‘'defendant to wait till court moots and his case is fixed for trial to make the necessary affidavit…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Watkixs, J.
The defendant is proceeded against by information, under Sec. 903 of the Revised Statutes, on the charge of embezzlement of public money, property of the State, while he was Secretary of State; and from a verdict of guilty and sentence by the court to fine and imprisonment at hard labor, he has appealed, and rests his claim to relief upon several bills of exception taken to the rulings of the trial judge, refusing to prant a continuance to obtain the attendance of absent witnesses; declining to give him a new trial; refusing to give to the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. SullivanSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1925
- State v. LesterLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2015
- Buteau v. Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1908
- State v. BischoffSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1919