26 N.M. 70 | N.M. | 1920
OPINION OF THE COURT.
Appellant was convicted of forgery and appeals. He relies upon two grounds for a reversal :
First, that the court erred in overruling his motion for a continuance. This motion was based upon the absence of two material witnesses, one of whom he alleged lived near the town of Caspar, Wyo., and the other resided in Taos county, this state. The facts which such witnesses were expected to testify to were set forth in the affidavit, but the affidavit was deficient in two particulars : (1) It did not set forth the efforts which had been put forth by appellant to obtain such witnesses. In fact, the affidavit contained no showing whatever of diligence; appellant stating simply that he had not had sufficient time to get in touch with the said witnesses and have them at the trial.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed; and it is so ordered.