Moulton v. State

1. In view of the very slight degree of diligence shown to have been exercised by the defendant in endeavoring to secure the attendance of the witness referred to in his motion for a continuance, and' *286of the fact that he did not state in the motion, as required by section 987 of the Penal Code, that he expected to be able to procure the testimony of the witness at the next term of the court, there was no error in overruling the motion.

Decided June 26, 1916. Indictment for seduction; from Early superior court — Judge Worrill. March 1, 1916. W. I. Geer, for plaintiff in error. B. T. Gastellow,…