Overton v. State
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Johnson v. State (Ark. 1976)
- Fleming v. State (Ark. 1904)
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Kilpatrick (Ark. 1899)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
after stating the facts as above reported.
Appellant is not entitled to a new trial on the ground . of surprise. He made no ‘‘application for a postponement of the trial in order that he ’ ’ might ‘ ‘ repair the damage done him by the unexpected testimony.” Nickens v. State, 55 Ark. 567; see also Norwich & Worcester R. Co. v. Cahill, 18 Conn. 484; Holley's Admx. v. Christopher, 3 T. B. Mon. 14; Phenix v. Baldwin, 14 Wend. 62; Estate of Carterey, 56 Cal. 473; Cook v. De La Guerra, 24 Cal. 240; Brooks v. Douglass, 32 Cal. 211; 3 Graham & Waterman on New Trials, p. 968; Hayne’s New Trial and Appeal, sec. 85.
. Conceding that the instructions which the appellant asked for could have been lawfully g'iven, he was not prejudiced by the refusal of the court to give the same, as they were sufficiently covered by those g'iven.
^ird ground is not properly presented for our consideration. It should appear, if true, in the bill of exceptions. Vaughan v. State, ante, p. 1.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.