Stoddart v. Garnhart

Citations

• 35 Tex. 300

Syllabus

<p>1. When a defendant had been notified to produce a certain paper at the trial, it was his duty to have filed it in the cause, or else to have so arranged that it would be forthcoming when called for at the trial; and under such circumstances it was not error to refuse him a continuance on the showing of his counsel that the paper was material to the defense, but that it was in the possession of the defendant, and he was absent on business, not expecting the case to be called for tria so soon.</p> <p>2. A continuance was asked on account of the absence of a witness who, according to the showing, lived in the county and had been subpoenaed; but the name of the witness was not given in the showing. Held, that the continuance was properly refused. The name being known, it should have been stated, so that the court could judge of the diligence exercised.</p>