Cox v. State

Reeves, Associate Justice.

There was no error in overruling appellant’s application for a continuance. He used no diligence whatever to procure the attendance of the absent parties whose testimony, as he states, was material to his defense. Confinement in jail, and want of information as to the requirements of law, when such information might have been obtained, is not a ground for continuance. He was served with a copy of the indictment November 17th, 1874, and thereby informed of the charge against him, and must then have known that it was necessary to take some steps to have his witnesses…