Vollm v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Vollm v. State

51 So. 275, 96 Miss. 651

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 51 So. 275 (Vollm v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vollm v. State, 51 So. 275, 96 Miss. 651 (Mich. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Wi-iiteield, O. T.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

We think the court below erred in not granting the continuance, or, at least, in not setting the ease for a later day in the term. The application for continuance was based on the ground that Mrs. A. E. Hall, who was a witness to the execution of the receipt in question, and who was within the jurisdiction of the court, and had been served with process, and who was then in the county, but sick, would testify “that the clause alleged to have been unlawfully inserted in the receipt 'was in ■said receipt when said I. 0. Prather signed it,” and “that defendant did not insert into said receipt or instrument the words •and matter set out in said indictment as having been inserted by defendant after Prather signed the receipt.” The affidavit for [653]*653continuance further showed that there was no other witness by whom these facts could be proven. It is manifest that the testimony of Mrs. Hall was of the most vital character, and the' court should certainly have either set the case for a later day in the term, or, if she could not during the term have recovered' from her illness, have continued the case to the next term.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Wi-iiteield, O. T.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

We think the court below erred in not granting the continuance, or, at least, in not setting the ease for a later day in the term. The application for continuance was based on the ground that Mrs. A. E. Hall, who was a witness to the execution of the receipt in question, and who was within the jurisdiction of the court, and had been served with process, and who was then in the county, but sick, would testify “that the clause alleged to have been unlawfully inserted in the receipt 'was in ■said receipt when said I. 0. Prather signed it,” and “that defendant did not insert into said receipt or instrument the words •and matter set out in said indictment as having been inserted by defendant after Prather signed the receipt.” The affidavit for [653]*653continuance further showed that there was no other witness by whom these facts could be proven. It is manifest that the testimony of Mrs. Hall was of the most vital character, and the' court should certainly have either set the case for a later day in the term, or, if she could not during the term have recovered' from her illness, have continued the case to the next term.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 So. 275, 96 Miss. 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vollm-v-state-miss-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack