Edmondson v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Bastrop. Tried below before the Hon. I. P. Richardson. On the trial of this cause an attachment was asked for by the defendant for one Bolen, who, it was alleged, lived about five miles from the town of Bastrop, where the trial was progressing. The application for attachment was orally made and defective in failing to state facts which authorized the writ.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Bastrop. Tried below before the Hon. I. P. Richardson. On the trial of this cause an attachment was asked for by the defendant for one Bolen, who, it was alleged, lived about five miles from the town of Bastrop, where the trial was progressing. The application for attachment was orally made and defective in failing to state facts which authorized the writ. Defendant then asked for a subpoena, which the clerk refused to issue, on account of the remark made by the presiding judge that “no process would be allowed to issue in this case to kill time.” The record discloses that eleven…
1Opinion of the Court
Reeves, Associate Justice.
Appellant prosecutes this appeal from a conviction for stealing two hogs alleged in the indictment to be the property of Mary Bolen.
During the progress of the trial and after the evidence for the State had been closed the defendant’s attorney stated to the court that since the commencement of the *231trial the defendant had learned that Alex. Rolen was a material witness for him, and asked an attachment for the witness. It appears from a bill of exceptions that the court, on being informed that the witness lived about five miles from the court-house, refused to order the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Pittman v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1906
- Coney Island Dairy Products Corp. v. BaldwinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
- Bedford v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1922