
    Brown v. The City of Tuscaloosa.
    
      Violating Mwnidpal Ordinance.
    (Decided December 17, 1914.
    67 South. 780.)
    
      Oontvwmce; Grounds; Discretion. — A continuance sought on the ground that the jury had heard all of the evidence in a prior prosecution against the same defendant, in which he was acquitted, involved matters of discretion lodged in the trial court, and not subject to review unless abuse is shown. (The other matters presented by the record are disposed of adversely to appellant’s contention in the case of Charlie Lane v. The City of Tuscaloosa, Infra.)
    Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court.
    Heard before’ Hon. Henry B. Foster.
    Will Brown was convicted of violating an ordinance of the city of Tuscaloosa prohibiting the selling or keeping of intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Wright & Fite, for appellant.
    Aside from the insistence of counsel that the court erred to the prejudice of the defendant in refusing a continuance on the grounds stated, the matters presented and authorities in support thereof will be found fully stated in the case of Charlie Lane v. The State, infra.
    
    Brown & Ward, for appellee.
    The jurors who did not act as jurors in the previous prosecution of the defendant, were not incompetent as jurors in this case. — 24 Cyc. 279 and cases cited therein. The other matters discussed by counsel will be found in the brief for appellee in the case of Charlie Lane v. The City of Tuscaloosa, infra.
    
   BROWN, J.

The only question presented in this record, not considered in the case of Charlie Lane v. City of Tuscaloosa, infra., 67 South. 778, is the action of the trial court in refusing to grant the defendant a continu-anee. Tbe matter urged in support of tbe application for continuance is that tbe defendant bad been tried by another jury for a violation of tbe prohibition ordinance of tbe city of Tuscaloosa, and, after tbe introduction of all tbe evidence, tbe court, at tbe instan ace of tbe defendant, directed a verdict in bis favor; that tbe evidence in that case was beard by all tbe jurors, from Avbicb a jury was to be selected to try this case.

It has been repeatedly held that tbe ruling of tbe trial court on application for continuance involves a matter of discretion that will not be reviewed, unless tbe discretion is shown' to have been grossly abused.—White v. State, 86 Ala. 69, 5 South. 674. This record does not show such abuse of discretion as to authorize this court to revise tbe action of tbe trial court in refusing to grant tbe continuance.

Tbe other questions presented were disposed of adversely to tbe contention of tbe appellant in the case of Lane v. City of Tuscaloosa, infra, 67 South. 778, and on tbe authority of that case tbe judgment of tbe county court is affirmed.

Affirmed.  