Lane v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit court, First Division. The court should have either granted a continuance or permitted the affidavit as to what would be the testimony of the absent witness to be read, as evidence, to the jury. 50 Ark. 108. The court properly exercised its discretion in overruling the motion for continuance.
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
The defendant, M. B. Lane, was indicted by a grand jury of the Pulaski circuit court for murder in the first degree, committed by killing Letha Lane on the 25th day of November, 1898, by shooting her with a gun. The indict-1 ment was filed in court on the 7th day of January, 1899. On the 14th of March following, the cause was continued on motion of the defendant, and was set for trial on the 29th of May, 1899. On the day set he filed another motion and an affidavit for continuance, based upon the absence of one Florence Simons. The motion, which was sworn to, alleged that the defendant could…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lascelles v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1892
- State v. RainsbargerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1888
- State v. BaileySupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- McGee v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1892
- Cushenberry v. McMurraySupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Miller v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Morris v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Newhouse Mill & Lumber Co. v. KellerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912