other means.\footnote{Engelstad v. Dufresne, 116 F. 582 (9th Cir. 1902).} Note, however, that this requirement is vitiated if the illness is sudden and there is no time to take a deposition.\footnote{Roberts v. Sinkey, 136 Kan. 292, 15 P.2d 427 (1932).} If a deposition by the party is available, the continuance may still be denied.\footnote{Davis v. United Fruit Co., 402 F.2d 328 (2nd Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1085 (1969); Gordan v. Butter, 182 Neb. 626, 156 N.W.2d 778 (1968); Merriman v. Lary, 205 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. Civ. App. 1947), rehearing denied, (1947); Kaiser v. Hutcheson, 112 S.W.2d 1058 (Tex. Civ. App. 1937).} In a case where a party was ill and the court granted counsel time to obtain a deposition, a later motion for a continuance to take a deposition was properly denied since it could not be demonstrated that the party was too ill to submit to the taking of the deposition.\footnote{Roseberg v. Scott, 120 Kan. 576, 244 P. 1063 (1926).} In federal court, the motion was also held properly denied where the party was ill, the trial court noting that a deposition could still have been secured.\footnote{Ballard v. Nye, 18 F.2d 98 (5th Cir. 1927).}

Likewise, where the testimony could have been obtained by stipulation,\footnote{Kitchens v. Hutchins, 44 Ga. 620 (1872).} or admission,\footnote{See Haflin v. United States, 223 F.2d 371 (5th Cir. 1955), rev'd. on other grounds, 358 U.S. 415 (1959); Brooks v. Bast, 242 Md. 350, 219 A.2d 84 (1966); Powell v. State, 39 Ala. App. 246, 100 So.2d 38, cert. denied, 267 Ala. 100, 100 So.2d 46 (1957); Moody v. Vickers, 79 Ohio App. 210, 72 N.E.2d 280 (1947).} the continuance was held properly denied. Some states specifically make the granting\footnote{An admission in this matter refers to a statutory procedure which takes place as follows: When the movant requests a continuance because of an absent witness, he submits an affidavit stating to what that witness will testify; if the opposing party admits the witness would so testify, the affidavit is introduced into evidence as a deposition and the continuance denied. See note 145 infra.} of an admission grounds for refusal of a continuance in their statutes and court rules.\footnote{ARK. STAT. ANN. ch. 27, § 1403 (1947); CODE OF GA. ANN. § 81-1411 (1935); IDAHO CODE ANN. § 10-109 (1948); ILL. PRAC. ACT & SUP. CT. R. 231(b); IND. STAT. ANN. § 9-1401 (1971 Burns); KY. CIV. R. 43.03; LA. CODE OF CIV. P. art. 710; MISS. CODE ANN. § 2522 (1942); MO. STAT. ANN. § 510.110 (1942 Vernon); N. M. STAT. ANN. § 21-8-11 (1953); ORE. REV. STAT. § 17.050 (1971); S. D. COMP. LAWS § 15-11-9 (1967).} A continuance has also been held properly denied where an affidavit of the absent party had already been introduced into evidence.\footnote{Lewis v. Bartley, 300 F.2d 788 (7th Cir. 1962); Skinner v. Lundy, 149 F.Supp. 57 (W. D. Ky. 1957).}

It thus becomes apparent that when a party who is a material witness is absent involuntarily, and his testimony cannot be obtained by deposition or other method, the continuance should be granted. If the party is voluntarily absent, or his testimony could have been obtained by other means, the continuance should not be granted.

\subsection{Criminal}

In criminal cases, the right of the defendant to be present at his own trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, and the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amend-