Hall v. State
| Citation | 35 Fla. 534,17 So. 638 |
| Parties | HALL v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 05 April 1895 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Error to circuit court, Walton county; W. D. Barnes, Judge.
T. A Hall was convicted of an assault with intent to murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. Applications for continuances rest in the sound discretion of the trial court, and the action of that court on them will not be reversed unless there has been a palpable abuse of that discretion to the disadvantage of the accused. All facts necessary to show a clear abuse of such discretion to the injury of the accused must be shown, and whenever the record is either silent or uncertain on any point material to establish an alleged abuse of discretion, the presumptions are all in favor of the correctness of the ruling denying the continuance.
2. On review of the testimony in the present case, held to be sufficient to sustain the verdict.
COUNSEL Daniel Campbell, for plaintiff in error.
William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of an aggravated assault at the fall term, A. D. 1894, for Walton county, under an indictment charging him with an assault with intent to murder one Edward George. There are but two assignments of error presented on the writ of error sued out from the sentence of the trial court, and they are, that the court erred--First in refusing the application of the defendant below for a continuance; and, second, in overruling his motion for a new trial.
The affidavit for a continuance reads as follows, viz.:
The rule applicable to motions for a continuance is fully stated in the case of Ballard v. State, 31 Fla. 266, 12 So 865, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clements v. State
......664; Hicks v. State, 25 Fla. 535, 6 So. 441; Newberry v. State, 26 Fla. 334, 8. So. 445; Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835, 29. Am. St. Rep. 232; Ballard v. State, 31 Fla. 266, 12. So. 865; Boyd v. State, 33 Fla. 316, 14 So. 836;. Bryvant v. State, 34 Fla. 291, 16 So. 177; Hall. v. State, 35 Fla. 534, 17 So. 638; Esterlin v. State, 43 Fla. 565, 31 So. 350; Gass v. State,. 44 Fla. 70, 32 So. 109; Jones v. State, 44 Fla. 74,. 32 So. 793; Bynum v. State (Fla.) 35 So. 65;. Webster v. State (Fla.) 36 So. 584. . . As was. said by this court in Gladden v. ......
-
Adams v. State
...... be presented, and, whenever the record is either silent or. uncertain on any point material to establish such an abuse of. discretion, the presumptions are all in favor of the. correctness of the ruling. Gass v. State, 44 Fla. 70, 32 So. 109; Hall v. State, 35 Fla. 534, 17 So. 638; Hicks v. State, 25 Fla. 535, 6 So. 441; Ballard. v. State, supra. . . Considering. the application for a continuance herein in the light of. these principles of the law, we find it to be fatally. defective, and the same was properly denied. ......
-
Hagan v. State
...absent without the consent of the defendant either directly or indirectly given. Bryant v. State, 34 Fla. 291, 16 So. 177; Hall v. State, 35 Fla. 534, 17 So. 638; Bynum v. State, 46 Fla. 142, 35 So. 65. affidavit in the instant case does not state that the alleged witnesses were absent with......
-
Levy v. Ladd
...... D. 1887, against the appellees, alleging therein 'that. George W. Ladd was a resident of the state of Maine; that on. the 5th day of May, 1884, divers fractional subdivisions of. sections 11, 12, 2, and 3 in township 7 S., of range 18 E.,. in ......