Jones v. State

1. Where an application for a continuance was made on the ground of the absence of a material witness, but it was not shown that the movant expected to be able to procure the testimony of such witness at the next term of the court, or that the application was not made for the purpose of delay, but to enable the party to procure the testimony of the absent witness, there was no error in overruling the motion.

2. Where the motion for a new trial showed that the motion to continue was made by counsel for the defendant, who in support thereof stated certain facts in his place; and it was later…