Don Maurice Randall v. United States

Appellant was tried before a jury, duly "impaneled, in the District Court for the Territory of Alaska, Third Division, and found guilty of an assault with a dangerous weapon, A.C.L. § 65-4-22 .

Appellant, assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to grant him a continu-ancq of the trial. Affidavits of two doctors were presented in support of the motion. The trial court considered the reasons advánced insufficient and in the exercise of its discretion denied the continuance. We find no abuse of that discretion and a review of the record before us fails to disclose an instance in which the appellant was handicapped or prejudiced in the conduct of his defense by reason of mental or physical disability or inability to testify.

An understanding of other assignments requires a statement of certain,of the facts:

Appellant and a woman, whom he identified as his wife, entered a barroom situate south of Anchorage, sometime during the early evening of July 16, 1952. Appellant and the woman were “getting pretty drunk”, as testified to by one of the witnesses, and- were engaged in an argument. They left the barroom for a short interval. When they returned the woman was crying.…