
    W. Williams v. The State.
    If a party relies upon a subpoena for Ms witness, when he might obtain an attachment to enforce Ms attendance, there is a want of the dilivenco necessary to entitle him to a continuance in case the witness fails to attend. (Paschal’s Digest, article 2987.) ’
    
      . 'Appeal from Brazoria. Tried below before the Hon. George E. Mann.
    Indictment for theft of a mare. There is no occasion to give particulars.
    
      T. Cr. Masterson, for appellant.
    
      Wm. Alexander, Attorney General, for the State.
   Walker, J.

Where the law authorizes the issuance of an attachment, if the party resort to his subpoena only to obtain the attendance of a witness, it is not sufficient diligence to entitle him to a continuance on account of the absence of the witness.

We are unable to determine from any statement of facts in this case whether the charge of the court was or was not calculated to mislead the jury.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.  