Rowland v. State
Rowland v. State
Opinion of the Court
The disposition of this case imposes upon us a profoundly solemn duty. Casper Abram, on the tenth day of last October, was murdered in cold
Two inoffensive men, traveling through the country as peddlers, Cohn and Abram, were assaulted by highwaymen. Abram was instantly killed ; Cohn was shot,, struck and stabbed, until left for dead by the roadside,, but recovered from his wounds in time to testify against-one of the murderers.
Reed has not been arrested or brought to trial-Rowland was tried at the November term of the district court for Titus county, and by a jury of his countrymen was found guilty of the murder of Casper Abram, and was condemned to death.
The evidence against him, both direct and circumstantial, was conclusive of his guilt. He appeals from, the judgment of the district court, and assigns two. grounds for error to the rulings.
1. That the court erred in overruling his motion for a change of venue.
2. That the court erred in overruling his motion for a continuance.
Four affidavits.were presented to the court in support of the motion for a change of venue. The court, following the rule laid down in Cotton v. The State, 32: Texas, 640, called upon four other persons, who were examined under oath, and testified to the best of their knowledge and belief, that there was no legal ground for the motion, whereupon the motion was overruled..
On granting a first continuance,, this court has held in a number of cases, that where the affidavit avers a. compliance with the statute, the court has no discretion, in granting or refusing a continuance. (See Hipp v., Bissell, 3 Texas, 18; Hipp v. Hutchett, 4 Texas, 20; Prewett v. Everett, 10 Texas,. 283.) But the statute
Had George Brooks been present on the trial, and sworn to the allegations made in the affidavit, his testimony would have been overborne by the testimony of the State’s witnesses; for they testify to seeing him at different times in the day on which Abram was killed, riding about the country in company with Reed, and at other times by himself.
Colonel A. R. Mitchell testifies that he came to his house after his mare and saddle, and that he also got his, Mitchell’s, gun, which he returned the same day. The witness says he saw both Reed and Rowland on the day of the killing; that Rowland came to his house at seven or eight o’clock in the morning; says he saw Rowland again in the evening, half a mile or so from Mt. Pleasant; that he found his gun at home that evening. He also states that he met Reed on the road, as he left home in the morning for Mt. Pleasant, and that he inquired of the witness for Rowland.
Of course, his honor the district judge could not have known, when a motion for a continuance was pre
We must therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- James Rowland v. State
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. On an application for change of venue in this murder case, the court • below called up the sheriff, clerk of the court, and two deputy sheriffs, and examined them under oath respecting the alleged “prejudice” against the accused, on which his application was based. The affiants stated that they knew of no prejudice which would prevent a fair trial in the county. Held, on the authority of Cotton v. The State, 32 Texas, 614, that the ruling of the court below in refusing the change of venue will not be disturbed by this court. 2. Copy of indictment for murder was served on the accused on the twenty-fifth of November, and on the same day he sued out a subpoena for a witness. On the twenty-ninth of November, he sued out an attachment for the witness, who had previously removed to a distant county (according to the affidavit of accused for a continuance), and by whom he expected to prove an alibi. The case came to trial on the same day he sued out the attachment, and he applied for a continuance for want of the witness. Held, that the showing of diligence made was not sufficient, and did not bring the case within the statutory rule; and furthermore, this court is satisfied, from an inspection of the whole evidence in the case, that if the absent witness had testified to the alibi it would have availed the defendant nothing; wherefore there was no error in overruling the application.