Cohn

Action for work and labor, in which defendant denies his indebtedness to plaintiff without denying the services alleged, and pleads a counterclaim.

Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of nine hundred dollars, from which, and an order denying his motion for a new trial, the defendant appeals.

Did the court err in denying defendant’s motion for a postponement of the trial? is the only question presented for decision.

On the sixth day of January, 1890, the cause was set for trial on the twenty-third day of the same month, of which counsel for defendant had due notice. Accordingly, the cause was called for trial on January 23, 1890, whereupon counsel for defendant moved for a postponement of the trial upon the following affidavit: —

*365 That there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion seems too plain to require argument.

1. The proposed testimony of the witness is irrelevant to any issue, since the answer of the defendant does not deny that plaintiff worked for defendant at the latter’s request.

2. The affidavit does not state, even on information or belief, that defendant remains absent from the county because he fears, or has reason to fear, that he will be killed or…