Pullen v. State

Citations

• 11 Tex. Ct. App. 89

Syllabus

<p>1. Continuance — Diligence.— Defendant’s application for a continuance stated that he caused a subpoena to issue “ immediately after his arrest,” but left the time of his arrest unstated; and then alleged that the subpoena was returned “not found,” and that “ thereupon he caused an attachment to issue,” but nowhere disclosed when the attachment was issued or the subpoena returned. Held, that these allegations were too indefinite to show diligence.</p> <p>2. Same.— If in an application for a continuance the disposition made of the process is alleged upon information and belief, the name of the informant should be disclosed.</p> <p>3. Same.—All applications of a defendant for a continuance on account of the absence of a witness must state that the witness is not absent by the defendant’s procurement or with his consent.</p> <p>4. Indictment for unlawfully branding a colt, with intent to defraud, was excepted to because it did not further describe the colt as an animal of the horse species. Held, that the exception was correctly overruled.</p>