Bentley v. Barrett

DREW, Judge.-

This case was before the court once before (see opinion reported in 144 So. 1S7). A rehearing was granted for the reason that the court did not in its former opinion consider a written application for continuance filed in the lower court by defendant. The court in its former opinion erroneously stated that the application for continuance was oral and not in writing, and therefore gave it little consideration.

The motion for continuance alleges that the •case was set for trial in the lower court for April IS, 1632, at 2 p. m.; that the fixing was made on April 15, 1932, and before…