" See, also, the following authorities regarding the discretionary right of a trial judge to grant or refuse adjournments: Gold v. Detroit United Railway, 169 Mich. 178; People v. Fenner, 217 Mich. 239; People v. Fitzgerald, 226 Mich. 402; People v. Kotek, 306 Mich. 408; People v. Schneider, 309 Mich. 158. Counsel for petitioner relies on People v. Jones, 48 Mich. 554; People v. Harding, 53 Mich. 481; People v. Gardner, 62 Mich. 307; People v. Taylor, 117 Mich. 583; In re Ascher, 130 Mich. 540 (57 L.R.A. 806); People v. Parker, 145 Mich. 488; and People v. Schepps, 231 Mich. 260. An examination of these authorities will disclose that the general rule was applied in each instance.

People v. Foote, 93 Mich. 38. See, also, People v. Raider, 256 Mich. 131; People v. Fitzgerald, 226 Mich. 402; People v. Fenner, 217 Mich. 239; People v. Jackzo, 206 Mich. 183; 16 C.J. p. 453, § 822. We are satisfied that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a continuance.

In People v. McCourtney, 220 Mich. 550, the liquor was poured out in the police patrol wagon by the defendant while on his way to the jail. It was held the statute was applicable. See, also, People v. Fitzgerald, 226 Mich. 402; People v. Miller, 217 Mich. 635. In the last cited case the constitutionality of the statute was assailed, but it was sustained.