The only grounds of the motion for a new trial- were that the court erred in refusing the motion of the plaintiff in error for, a continuance and the general grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence and without evidence to support it. The motion for a con*699t¡nuance was one addressed to the discretion of the court. It appearing that the court did not abuse his discretion in refusing the motion for a continuance, and the evidence being sufficient to support the verdict, the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial is

Affirmed.