#Radiocaster v.107 in the morning trial#

The testimony of his wife, Mary Roberts, who was not called as a witness at the former trial, would have been merely cumulative.

#Radiocaster v.107 in the morning trial#

The wife's condition was already covered by previous affidavits and a motion for continuance was overruled for consideration before the trial commenced.' This, the second motion, was overruled.Д«efore the completion of the case appellant's son, Charles Roberts, appeared and testified. There are no doctor's certificates or affidavits and it is unfair to the Commonwealth at this time to ask for a continuance under these circumstances, the case already being in its second day of trial and none of the reasons are sufficient grounds for continuance. Vosburg, while it is represented that he is ill, is attending his duties operating his gasoline station at Cambridge Springs while defendant has represented that his son is sick, he was seen this morning in Cambridge Springs in his automobile and being around generally. Straub is not ill or sick, that he is now attending to his duties in his store that Mr. To proceed will put him in such a position as not adequately having help in his defense.' The district attorney objected to the continuance stating, 'that none of these witnesses were subpЕ“naed to be here that Mr.

Magee: If your Honor please, at this time I would like to make a motion for continuance in as much as the defendant has two vital witnesses, his son and his wife, who are unable to attend on account of sickness and Mr. On the following morning, February 14, 1947, when court convened, appellant again moved for a continuance, viz.: 'Mr. The trial judge after inquiry into all the facts and circumstances refused the motion and the case proceeded to trial. When this case was called for retrial, the appellant, in aid of his request for a continuance, advised the trial judge that one of the defense witnesses, Mary Roberts, daughter-in-law of the defendant, could not appear as her children were ill, and for the further reason that she lived on a country road rendered impassable by a severe snowstorm several days prior thereto. It cannot be said as a matter of law that the jury in returning a verdict of guilty acted capriciously and without regard to the testimony.ДЄpplications for continuance are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and the action taken thereon in the absence of manifest abuse thereof, will not be disturbed: Commonwealth v. No complaint is made by appellant to the charge of the trial judge with regard to its fairness, completeness or propriety. We are all of the opinion that there was ample evidence to support the verdict, that the defendant had a fair trial, and that appellant's argument that the testimony of the Commonwealth's witnesses was 'incredible,' 'improbable,' 'absurd,' 'unworthy of belief,' 'ridiculous,' 'beyond comprehension,' and 'inconceivable,' in the circumstances of this case is one which should have been addressed to a jury and not to this Court. That the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.ДЄ detailed recital of the shameful debauchery is unnecessary. This appeal seeking a new trial is based (1) on the lower court's refusal to grant a continuance of the case to the succeeding session of the court, (2) to alleged prejudicial remarks by the trial judge and (3) * At the second trial, appellant was found guilty and sentence duly imposed. 1 The jury was unable to agree upon a verdict and was discharged. Roberts, appellant, was indicted and tried by a jury for incestuous statutory rape.