56 Kan. 686 | Kan. | 1896
The opinion of the court was delivered by
: At November term, 1895, the defendant was convicted of an attempt to ravish Henri
We hold that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. The prosecution was long delayed, but conviction fast followed the arrest. It must have been a difficult task to ascertain the occupants of the double carriage two years after the event; and, until they were found and interviewed, no statement could be made as to their evidence in an application for a continuance. There was no lack of diligence. It is admitted that the evidence of Ford is very material, but counsel for the state contends