Beasley v. State

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conclusion has been reached that the bill of exception is sufficient to require a review of the action of the court in refusing to grant the appelant’s second application for a continuance, which embraced the names of several witnesses. As to none of them, however, save the appellant’s wife, was there an averment that the testimony desired could be obtained from no other source known to the appellant. In the particular mentioned, the application, so far as it depends upon witnesses, except the wife of the appellant, is defective. See…