
    Titus v. Crittenden.
    It is not; error to refuse a continuance for the purpose of testimony which, when obtained, cannot benefit the party seeking it; therefore, where the answer of the defendant disclosed no defense, and the application for a continuance did not recite the testimony to obtain which the continuance was desired, it was held that the continuance was rightly refused.
    Error from Red River. This was an action by the indorsee against the maker of a promissory note. The defendant pleaded that the note was purchased by tlie plaintiff of the pasme for two-thirds of its nominal value, and that the contract was therefore usurious. He moved a continuance, supported by affidavit, to obtain tlie testimony of one Wootten, who was tlie payee of the note sued on. Tlie court refused tlie application. There was judgment for the plaintiff.
    
      Morrill and Dickson, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Young and Morgan, for defendant in error.
   Wheeler, J.

The matter pleaded by the defendant manifestly presented ro defense to the action. That the note may have been transferred to the plaintiff for two-thirds of its value did not render the contract sued on usurious.

We must suppose that tlie testimony of the witness was sought for the purpose of proving the truth of tlie pleii. But tlie matter pleaded, if proved, not constituting any ground of defense, the testimony could have been of no avail to tlie defendant. It is not error to refuse a continuance for tbe purpose of obtaining testimony which, when obtained, cannot benefit the party seeking it.

We are of opinion that the court did not err in refusing a continuance, and that the judgment he affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  