Loftus

This is an appeal from the order of the court denying plaintiff a new trial.

In the opinion of this court rendered upon the appeal from the judgment (Loftus v. Fischer, 106 Cal. 616 ), the facts are fully set forth, and need not here be repeated.

1. It was not error for the court to refuse a continuance on account of the absence of the witnesses Behlow and O’Gorman. Defendant made the admission as to the evidence of these absent witnesses which is contemplated by section 595 of the Codp of Civil Procedure, and the affidavit containing all that it was proposed to prove by them was admitted in evidence at the trial upon plaintiff’s offer.

*288 2. It was not error to refuse plaintiff a jury trial. The action was a simple proceeding in equity to reform a contract, and meanwhile to restrain defendant from disposing of certain mining stock, the subject matter of the contract, and held by him in pledge. (Société Francaise v. Selheimer, 57 Cal. 623 ; Fish v. Benson, 71 Cal. 428 .)

3. Of the numerous exceptions taken to the rulings of the court in rejecting or admitting evidence it is sufficient to say, as to most of them, that the rulings were correct or that the subjects of inquiry…