ART. 75] CONTINUANCE. 1663

The purpose of this section is the orderly and prompt dispatch of business.
This section referred to in upholding a Judgment of non pros, for failure to
reply to a plea. Marsh v. Johns, 49 Md. 570. And see Kent v. McEldery,
9 Gill, 496.

No appeal lies from the refusal of the court to grant a continuance. Hop-
kins v. State, 53 Md. 517; Universal, etc., Co. v. Bachus, 51 Md. 32; Miller v.
Miller, 41 Md. 624; Cumberland, etc., Co. v. McKaig, 27 Md. 267.

1904, art. 75, sec. 59. 1888, art. 75, sec. 57. 1860, art. 75, sec. 35.
1787, ch. 9, secs. 2, 3, 8.

59. Upon suggestion, supported by the affidavit of the party or some
other credible person, that the evidence of a witness who resides in some
place beyond the limits of this State, or the evidence of a witness resid-
ing within this State is wanting, the court shall continue the cause for
such time as may be deemed necessary to enable the party to procure
the attendance or obtain the testimony of such absent witness; provided,
the party applying for the continuance shall comply with the provisions
of the, two following sections.

Ibid. sec. 60. 1888. art. 75. sec. 58. 1860. art. 75. sec. 36.
1787. ch. 9, secs. 2, 3.

60. The party applying for a continuance under the preceding sec-
tion shall prove by his affidavit, or the affidavit of some other credible
person to be filed in the cause, that the testimony of the absent witness
(naming him) is material, competent and proper in such suit; that he
believes that the cause cannot be tried with justice to the party without
such evidence; that he has used his proper and reasonable endeavors to
procure the same and that he has a reasonable expectation and belief
that the same can thereafter be procured in some reasonable time.

Ibid. sec. 61. 1888, art. 75, sec. 59. 1860, art. 75, sec. 37.
1787, ch. 9, secs. 2, 3. 1886, ch. 311.

61. The court may examine on oath a party making the affidavit
under the preceding section in regard to the materiality of the testi-
mony, the probability of procuring the attendance of the witness in a
reasonable time, and on what information or knowledge he believes the
witness will prove what he alleges; and if, on such examination, the
court is satisfied of the truth of the affidavit and that the testimony is
material and competent, a continuance shall be granted, unless the
adverse party will admit the facts which it is so alleged the absent wit-
ness will prove to be in evidence to the same effect as if said absent
witness had testified thereto, saving, however, to the adverse party the
same right to impeach or contradict said testimony as if said witness
had been present.

The affidavit should state all the material facts which the absent witness

would prove, those unfavorable as well as those favorable, to the affiant's

case. Power of the court under this section. Continuance properly refused.

Dean v. Turner, 31 Md. 57. And see McMechen v. McLaughlin, 4 H & McH.

167.

Where the adverse party goes to trial upon an admission of what a witness

would prove, he Is concluded as to the matter of the affidavit or statement,

and can not dispute its truth at the trial. This section does not, however.

dispense with the rule that the allegata and probata must correspond. Bryan

v. Coursey, 3 Md. 06.