State v. Lewis

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Lewis

45 La. Ann. 24

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 15, 1893

DocketNo. 11,140

StatusPublished

This text of 45 La. Ann. 24 (State v. Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Lewis, 45 La. Ann. 24 (La. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Fenner, J.

There appears but a single bill of exceptions, which was taken to a refusal of.a continuance applied for on the ground of absence of a material witness.

[25]*25The affidavit discloses no diligence except the statement that the witness “ has not been summoned and is not present, although ■defendant used all means in his power to have him here and left an order with the clerk of the court on the order book for the summons of said witness.” The judge states as his reason for refusing the bill “no diligence was shown, and the place of residence of witness was not discovered to the sheriff or the clerk, and the sheriff’s return shows that the witness could not be found in the parish.”

We do not lightly interfere with rulings on the subject of continuance, and certainly the showing here made does not justify such interference.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Fenner, J.

There appears but a single bill of exceptions, which was taken to a refusal of.a continuance applied for on the ground of absence of a material witness.

[25]*25The affidavit discloses no diligence except the statement that the witness “ has not been summoned and is not present, although ■defendant used all means in his power to have him here and left an order with the clerk of the court on the order book for the summons of said witness.” The judge states as his reason for refusing the bill “no diligence was shown, and the place of residence of witness was not discovered to the sheriff or the clerk, and the sheriff’s return shows that the witness could not be found in the parish.”

We do not lightly interfere with rulings on the subject of continuance, and certainly the showing here made does not justify such interference.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 La. Ann. 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lewis-la-1893.