This appeal from the District Court in a suit for slander raises a question as to the court’s action in directing a verdict for defendant (appellee) upon the ground that the alleged defamatory utterance was made under the protection of qualified privilege.

In our opinion the record clearly supports the ruling of the trial court.

We also think the court acted well within its discretion in refusing to delay the trial to await the appearance of a proposed witness for the plaintiff (appellant), especially so, when, in acting upon the motion for a directed verdict, the judge considered a proffer by counsel of expected testimony from such witness. The judgment is

Affirmed.