Trevinio v. State

Citations

• 1 Tex. Ct. App. 72

Syllabus

<p>Theft—Continuance.—Appellant was indicted for theft of a “gelding,” on 29th of June, 1875, arrested next day, and on the ensuing day he sued out an attachment for several absent witnesses, which was returned “ not found;” and thereupon he applied for a continuance, alleging in his affidavit that he could not go safely to trial without the testimony of two of the said witnesses, by whom he expected to prove that the “horse” alleged to have been stolen was sold to accused by one of said witnesses, who had the owner’s authority to sell the same; that the witnesses were not absent with the consent of accused, etc. Held, that the showing was sufficient; and it was error to refuse the continuance on technical grounds, or because the affidavit called the animal a “horse” instead of a “gelding,” it being manifest that the affidavit uses the word in its ordinary, and not its statutory, significance.</p>