Appellant made an alternative application on the day of trial for a postponement or a continu
There can be no question as to the importance and materiality of this testimony. The absent witness Wallace had never disobeyed a subpoena, and had been served with a new subpoena on the day of trial. As to him there could be no question of diligence.
We are of opinion the court should have granted a postponement or continuance in the first instance. Failing to do so, a new trial should have been granted, when this absent testimony was entitled to a second consideration in connection with the other evidence in the case.
Because of error in overruling motion for new trial, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
