opinion: WILSON v. BECKETT et al.
  No. 8492.
  United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.
  Argued May 1, 3944.
  Decided May 15, 1944.
  Miss Etta L. Taggart, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Paul D. Taggart, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
  Mr. W. Cameron Burton, of Washington, D. C, with whom Mr. Thomas B. Heffelfinger was on the brief, for appellees Middleton and Beckett.
  Mr. Hubert G. King, of Washington, D. C., for appellee Wilkins.
  Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
  PER CURIAM.
  Appellant brought this suit to set aside a deed on the ground that the grantor was mentally incompetent. The District Court, on conflicting evidence, adjudged that the grantor was of sound mind and the deed valid.
  A few minutes before the trial appellant’s counsel learned that one of her witnesses, Marie Ryan, was ill and unable to testify. Expecting to produce this witness on the following day, counsel answered ready and went to trial; but Ryan, as it turned out, was not able to appear at any time during the trial. The court refused to grant a continuance for the purpose of taking her deposition. The question is whether this was an abuse of discretion.
  Appellant told the court nothing about the nature of Ryan’s probable testimony except that it would be “very important” and would be “along the line of. what Mollie testified to * * * and additional things.” The testimony of the witness Mollie Maxwell had been along at least two divergent lines, one favorable and one unfavorable to the grantor’s sanity. She had testified to eccentricities, some of them gross, on the part of the grantor, who was her employer. She had also testified: “I can’t say that she was crazy, but her mind was bad. If she had been crazy I wouldn’t have been working for her; but her mind was bad, very bad.” The court found as facts that the grantor “eschewed baths” and had “certain eccentricities.” Ryan’s cumulative testimony, and likewise the “additional things” which counsel had in mind but did not disclose, might or might not have been important. If they would in fact have been important, counsel should have made this clear by a definite offer of proof.
  On the other hand, a judge is no mere umpire. '“It is the recognized function of a trial judge to see that facts are clearly and fully developed.” He necessarily has a wide discretion in the matter. We think it would have been better practice for the court either to satisfy itself, by questioning counsel, that Ryan’s testimony would not affect the result of the case, or to grant a brief continuance so that appellant might take her deposition. But we are not prepared to rule that the court’s failure to do either of these things was an abuse of discretion.
  Affirmed.
  Cf. Cornwell v. Cornwell, 73 App.D.C. 233, 318 F.2d 396; Harrah v. Morgenthau, 67 App.D.C. 119, 89 F.2d 863.
  Bethlehem Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 74 App.D.C. 52, 63, 120 F.2d 641, 642.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private organization or association", specifically "other". Your task is to determine what subcategory of private association best describes this litigant.
choices: Civic, social, fraternal organization Political organizations - Other than political parties Examples: Civil rights focus; Public Interest - broad, civil liberties focus (ACLU) or broad, multi-issue focus (Common Cause, Heritage Foundation, ADA) or single issue - Environmental ENV, Abortion, etc. (prolife, pro-abortion), elderly, consumer interests: Consumer Federation of America, Consumer's Union, National Railroad Passenger Association; PAC Political party Educational organization - Private, non-profit school Educational organization - Association, not individual school - PTA or PTO Religious or non-profit hospital or medical care facility (e.g., nursing home) Other religious organization (includes religious foundations) Charitable or philanthropic organization (including foundations, funds, private museums, private libraries) Other Unclear