Cook v. State

It is clear that a new trial should, not be granted in this case on the ground that the court erred in refusing to continue the case on account of the absence of the witness Paulk, by whom the defendant, on his motion for continuance, alleged that he expected to prove that the female alleged to have been outraged made the statement to this witness that she had not been outraged by the defendant. This evidence would only have been admissible in the event this woman had been sworn as a witness for the State, and, after her attention had been called to the time, place, and circumstances, she had…