Andrews v. State

273 S.W. 568, 100 Tex. Crim. 653
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Andrews v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 101 Tex. Crim. 261
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided June 24, 1924·No. No. 8684.·Published

Opinion

ON REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND MOTION FOR REHEARING.

HAWKINS, Judge. —

In our opinion on rehearing the merit of appellant’s application for continuance was considered, but we stated that the question was not brought forward by bill of exception. In the reguest to file second motion attention is called to our error in this regard. The application for continuance was copied twice in the record, being embraced one time in a bill of exception and the other time not in the form of a bill. This caused our mistake. The portion of the opinion on rehearing stating that no bill was reserved to the ruling relative to the requested continuance has been eliminated therefrom. Having made this correction, this application will be denied.

Denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Andrews v. State, 273 S.W. 568, 100 Tex. Crim. 653 (Tex. 1924).

273 S.W. 568 (Andrews v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.