Bascom v. State

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant contends that we erred in refusing his application for continuance, upon the ground that the-absent testimony, though cumulative, was of such materialty as that we should have held upon mbtion for new trial that he was entitled to same under the opinions of this court in certain cases that are cited. We have examined each of these authorities. In our original opinion attention was called to the fact that the application for continuance was wholly defective in that it, being a second application, should have complied with the statutory…