Martin v. State

1. The refusal of the trial judge to continue the case, when considered in connection with his qualifying note in regard thereto, was no abuse of discretion.

2. For no reason assigned did the court err in allowing to go to the jury the evidence to the admission of which complaint is made in the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

*576Decided July 13, 1926. Andrew J. Tuten, for plaintiff in error. 8. Thomas Memory, solicitor, contra.

(а) An objection to evidence that it is “immaterial, inadmissible, and prejudicial” is too general to present anything for consideration by this court. See, in this…