Defendant’s application for a continuance complied strictly with the requirements of the statute. The absent testimony was material, and, in view of the testimony adduced on the trial, was probably true. We are of the opinion that the court erred, in the first instance, in refusing defendant’s application for a continuance, and, secondly, in refusing to grant him a new trial.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.