dissenting. I think the motion for continuance should have been granted.

1. It is not an abuse of discretion to refuse to grant a continuance upon the ground of the absence of a witness, where it appears that the absent witness was not subpoenaed, and that the applicant, by exercise of due diligence, could have had the witness subpoenaed.

2. No error of law is complained of, and there was evidence to support the verdict, and the judgment refusing a new trial will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.