Cagle v. State

It was within the discretion of the trial court to grant a continuance to deiehdant on account of the absence of some of his witnesses, or to put the prosecution on showing by defendant as to what the witnesses would testify, if present. It does not appear that the discretion was abused in this case, or that any injury resulted to defendant, and the denial of the continuance cannot be pronounced erroneous. Sanderson v. State, 168 Ala. 109, 53 South. 109; Caldwell v. State, 203 Ala. 412, 84 South. 272.

Defendant’s motion for a continuance because the requisite number of jurors were not present…