ill to attend the trial. In cases where there is little hope that the accused's health will ever improve, and continuance can properly be denied. Notable is a case of an 80-year-old man who had many delays due to a chronic medical condition. In his trial, the judge ruled there was little hope he would ever be in a better condition, and denied the continuance. There has been opposite opinion where a continuance was allowed, and any question of a prospective improvement in the defendant was not the test and irrelevant. A continuance is proper when the accused is unable to assist counsel because of mental illness. Civil cases The absence of counsel is a recognized ground for continuance of a civil case and is in the discretion of the court to grant or deny. Illness, death or withdrawal of counsel in civil cases are also reasons for granting a continuance. Absence of witness or evidence A civil case may be continued due to a lack of evidence or witnesses. An affidavit is usually required to explain the issues involved in the request for a continuance. An affidavit for continuance that did not state the name and address of an absent witness and what the defendant expected to prove by his testimony failed to comply with the requirements of the statute, and denial thereof was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion. If all the requirements of an application for a continuance are met and described in the affidavit submitted to the court, and it is not being done for purposes of delay, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny a continuance. To justify a continuance of a civil case due to the absence of evidence, the missing evidence must be shown to have relevance to the case. The missing evidence must be material to some issue in the case. Generally, in a civil case, a continuance sought due to absence of evidence will not be granted unless reasonable diligence has been used to procure it. The question of diligence is a matter of fact, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. In some jurisdictions, the issuance of a subpoena is evidence of due diligence. In many jurisdictions the service of a subpoena by itself, is insufficient to entitle a party to a continuance because of the absence of a witness. To demonstrate the absence of