Fountain v. Whatley

1. The court did not err in overruling the motion to continue the case on account.of designated absent witnesses. It was not made to appear that any of such witnesses had ever been subpoenaed. In so far as it was shown what said witnesses would testify if present, the evidence was of slight materiality and weight. The motion was also deficient in respect to the question of delay, as to the probability of securing the attendance of the witnesses, who are now in other States. None of the caveators who made the motion were sworn on the question of continuance, the motion being made entirely by…