
    PERILLAT vs. TIFFANY.
    ing a contiri-uance, need not state the fact to be proved.
    This suit having been before continued, on the motion of each of the parties, the defendant prayed for a continuance on the ordinary affidavit.
    Porter, for the plaintiff.
    The affidavit is in- sufficient, as the fact intended to be proved, is not stated.
    Parrot, for the defendant.
    It need not be stated. The Court, indeed, when a suit is continued often, may require the applicant to satisfy them of the materiality of the testimony expected to be drawn from the absent witness, so as to afford the adverse party the opportunity of trying the cause by admitting the fact, if he chooses. But this is never done till the Court demand it.
   Continuance granted.  