
    9792.
    Littlefield v. The State.
    Decided November 1, 1918.
    Indictment for sale of intoxicating liquor; from Whitfield superior court—Judge Tarver. April 10, 1918.
    
      W. E. Mann, Glenn & House, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. M. Lang, solicitor-general, contra.
   Harwell, J.

1. The defendant’s motion for a continuance on account of absent witnesses failing to conform to the statutory requirements (Penal Code (1910), § 987; Civil Code, § 5715), the court did not err in overruling the motion.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial. See, in this connection, Littlefield v. State (case No. 9793), ante, 782.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodmorth, J., concur.  