Hollis v. State

PRENDERGAST, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the theft of property of the value of more than $50, and assessed the lowest punishment;

The testimony rvas clearly sufficient to establish his guilt. We see no necessity for reciting the facts. There are but-two questions raised.» One is, he complains that the court erroneously refused his application for a continuance. He made it on account of the absence of two witnesses. One of these later reached the court and was introduced as a witness for, and testified in behalf of, the State, materially different from what appellant alleged he would.…