Crosby v. State

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Appellant insists that the court misapprehended the record, which led to an erroneous holding that the supplemental application for continuance would be treated as a subsequent application. In so far as the witness Homer Couch is concerned we think appellant is right. The first application was based upon the absence of the witnesses Wilson and Bob Couch. The record does not show that any process had ever issued for Bob Couch, or that he in fact was wanted as a witness, save that he was named in the first application. When the court overruled appellant’s…