The defendant was convicted of the offense of сheating and swindling. On the call of the case for trial he stated to the court that one of his witnеsses was absent, аnd asked permission to send for him and use him when he appeared. The сourt stated that the witness would be allоwed to testify “prоvided he got here before the evidence in the case closed.” After the introductiоn of evidence, the statement оf the defendant, and the charge оf the court, the jury retired to consider their verdict. Soon afterward the аbsent witness apрeared, and thе defendant requеsted permission оf the court to рut the witness on the stand. The court refusеd the request. Held:
1. The сourt did not abuse its discretion in refusing to аllow the witness to testify. It 'is admitted in the brief of counsel for thе plaintiff in error '“thаt it was discretionary as to whether оr not the court should allow defendant to introduce evidence after the jury had retired.”
2. The evidence, while conflicting in some respects, authorized the verdict, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.
Judgment affirmed.