
    FLORES v. STATE.
    No. 13730.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 26, 1930.
    W. Owen Dailey and Lawrence H. Kenner, both of Houston, for appellant.
    Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s-Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, 3. '

Conviction for selling intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

Appellant made a second motion for continuance, which was properly overruled. Diligence for the absent witness was not shown. Appellant had another witness present who gave, in substance, the same testimony as that set up in the application. Subsequent continuances will not be granted for cumulative testimony. Harvey v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 559, 34 S. W. 623; Bearden v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 276, 83 S. W. 808; section 322, Branch’s Annotated P. C., and authorities cited.

That Jones, the alleged purchaser, paid' Cor the liquor with money furnished him by another, affords appellant no ground for complaint. Bruce v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 29, 44 S. W. 852; Smart v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 373, 92 S. W. 810; section 1236, Branch’s Annotated P. C., and authorities cited.

It was competent for Mr. Mangum, the sheriff, to testify that after the alleged sale he raided the house of appellant’s mother where the latter lived, and that he found there a quantity of whisky. Starbeck v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 192, 109 S. W. 162; Field v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 527, 117 S. W. 806; Branch’s Annotated P. C. p. 710, and authorities cited.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

HAWKINS, J., absent.  