Dunlap v. State

Citations

• 9 Tex. Ct. App. 179

Syllabus

<p>1. Continuance. —■ Eefusal of a continuance is not error unless the record shows that the rights of the appellant were prejudiced by an abuse of the discretion of the trial judge, upon whom is devolved the responsibility of determining the truth, merits, and sufficiency of all applications for continuance, primarily when they are submitted, and again on motions for new trials.</p> <p>2. Legal Holidays. — The 1st of January and certain other days are declared by statute to be “legal holidays,” and are assimilated to the Sabbath in respect of certain civil proceedings and purposes; but the courts are not required to suspend their proceedings on such days. It was not error, therefore, to refuse to postpone a trial because the day was the first of January.</p> <p>3. Evidence oe Deceased Witness. —In the trial of the appellant for the murder of one 0-, the State offered in evidence the deposition of 0-, given and reduced to writing at an examining trial of the appellant for an assault with intent to murder the said 0., who died after the examining trial. On objection by the defence that the deposition was not properly authenticated, it was excluded by the court, and then the State offered to prove by paroi the testimony of 0. at the examining trial. To the paroi proof the defence objected that it was not the best evidence of C.’s testimony, and that O.’s testimony was not given on a trial of the appellant for the same offence as that for which he was then on trial, viz., murder. Held, that the objections were properly overruled, and the paroi proof of C.’s testimony correctly admitted. See the opinion in extenso on the subject.</p>