State v. O'Donald
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County. The court should have granted appellant’s motion for a. continuance. A sufficient showing of diligence in the attempt, to procure the attendance of witnesses was made, and the court should not have jeopardized this man’s liberty by refusing his reasonable request for a continuance in order to procure witnesses to prove so important a fact as his absence from the place when the alleged crime was committed.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County. The court should have granted appellant’s motion for a. continuance. A sufficient showing of diligence in the attempt, to procure the attendance of witnesses was made, and the court should not have jeopardized this man’s liberty by refusing his reasonable request for a continuance in order to procure witnesses to prove so important a fact as his absence from the place when the alleged crime was committed. (Harrington v. State, 31 Tex. Or. 577, 21 S. W. 356: Gum v. State, 21 S. W. 44; Arrington v. State, 20 S. W. 927; Hyden v. State, 31 Tex. Or. 401,…
1Opinion of the CourtHuston, J.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of burglary. Appeal is taken from judgment and sentence thereon. No bill of exceptions appears in the record. In fact, there' is no record, such as is contemplated by the statute. Unless, the record show's a substantial compliance with the statutes and the rules of this court, it will not be considered. What purports to be the record is merely a copy of the information, a. copy of three affidavits by defendant, and one by his wife, in support of a motion for a continuance, the motion for a continuance, and the order of the court overruling the same,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gray v. PiersonIdaho Supreme Court · 1901
- State v. WilliamsIdaho Supreme Court · 1895