Skaro v. State

Citations

• 43 Tex. 88

Syllabus

<p>1. Continuance.—After a jury had been selected and sworn to try the case, the defendant’s only counsel, who had just been retained, discovered that his application for continuance, which had been overruled, and which was defective only in failing to show that a proper affidavit for attachment had been made, and the writ issued, discovered that the writ had in fact issued upon proper showing, and thereupon made another application for continuance which was overruled; Held, that to have granted the application last made would have been a proper exercise of judicial discretion, and the refusal to grant it is cause for reversal when the materiality of the testimony of the absent witness appears, when considered in connection with the other evidence introduced on the trial.</p> <p>2. Continuance—Practice.-—'The sufficiency of an application for a continuance does not depend on the evidence of other witnesses. If it is proper at the time made, and sufficient cause shown for the continuance, it should be granted, without waiting the result of a trial on other evidence.</p> <p>3. Continuance—Admission.—An admission that a witness, on account of whose absence a continuance is asked, would swear, if present, as stated in the affidavit for continuance, w}ll not defeat the application; it could only have that effect when the facts are admitted to be true.</p>