Bedford v. State

ON REHEARING.

March 15, 1922. .

LATTIMORE, Judge.

—It is earnestly insisted that diligence to obtain the testimony of witness Blocker was shown, and that the continuance because of his absence should have been granted. It is stated in the motion for rehearing that the failure to obtain process for said witness between the time of the return of the indictment in October, 1920, and July 1st following, was through no fault of the appellant but resulted from the existence of a rule of the Criminal District Court of Harris county to the effect that no process should issue for, a witness till the case…