Dinkens v. State
Citations
- 42 Tex. 250
Syllabus
<p>1. Due biligence. An application for continuance by a defendant, who •before indictment had been committed by a magistrate in default of bail, if good in other respects, cannot be refused on the ground that the accused had not used diligence to procure his testimony before indictment : no statute authorizes the clerk to issue process for witnesses before indictment found.</p> <p>2. When the application for continuance complies with the requirements of law, no discretion exists in granting it.</p>
Judges: Reeves
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Peeler v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1877-07-01
- Swofford v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1877-07-01
- Brown v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1877-07-01
- Tooney v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1878-07-01
- Williams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1881-07-01
- McLey v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado· 1910-09-15
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.