
    STATE v. SMITH.
    1. Appeal — Continuance—Discretion.—Refusal of motion for continuance on account of absence of witnesses is not appealable, except in clear case of abuse of discretion.
    2. Ibid. — Stenographer.—Requiring defendant to go to trial in absence of stenographer is not ground for new trial, when no objection was made at the time, and appellant has not shown that he was thereby prejudiced.
    Befo're Gary, J., Spartanburg, July, 1899.
    Affirmed.
    Indictment against Frank Smith for assault and battery with intent to kill. From sentence on verdict, defendant appeals.
    
      Mr. C. P. Sims, for appellant.
    
      Solicitor Sease, contra.
    January 2, 1900.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Jones.

Appellant asks a reversal of the judgment of the Circuit Court for alleged error: (1) in not granting a continuance on account of the absence of two of his witnesses, and (2) in forcing him to trial in the absence of the stenographer.

The refusal of a motion for continuance does not constitute reversible error, unless a clear case of abuse of discretion is shown. In this case it does not even appear that the witnesses were material, much less that there was any abuse of discretion in proceeding with the trial.

No objection was made on account of the absence of the stenographer; but if there had been such objection, there is nothing to show that appellant was in any way prejudiced by such absence. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.  