
    PAIGE v. MENKE.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
    July 5, 1913.)
    Continuance (§ 37) — Motion—Diligence.
    Where a motion for continuance for absence of a witness did not state facts showing the exercise of due diligence to obtain the testimony of the absent witness, nor what, if any, diligence had been used, and also failed to state a single fact expected to be proved by such witness, it was properly denied.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Continuance, Cent. Dig. §§ 117-121, 127; Dec. Dig. § 37.]
    Appeal from District Court, Waller County; Wells Thompson, Judge.
    Action between Sam K. Paige and C, A. Menke. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    R. E. Tompkins, of Hempstead, for appellant. J. D. Harvey and Keet McDade, both of Hempstead, for appellee.
    
      
       For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER m Doc. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   JENKINS, J.

Appellant assigns as error the action of the court in overruling his motion for a continuance, and also that the judgment is not supported by the evidence.

There was no error in overruling the motion for a continuance. It did not state that appellant had used due diligence to obtain the testimony of the absent witnesses, nor what, if any, diligence he had used. It did not state a single fact that he expected to prove by either of such witnesses.

The evidence is not only sufficient to sustain the judgment, but, under the evidence, no other judgment could have been properly rendered. There are no novel questions of law involved in this case. It would serve no useful purpose to set out and comment on the testimony. There was no conflict in the evidence.

Finding no error of record, the judgment is affirmed.  