History
  • No items yet
midpage
Killmer v. Crary
13 Johns. 228
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1816
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

The only'question in this case is* whether the justice ought to have received the affidavit of the attorney, as to the absence and materiality of the Witnesses. This Was, .in'; Some manner,. á; matter resting in the spund discretion of the justice ; and .from the evidence returned, as to the inability of the defendant to attend the court, wq oannót say that there: was -such án abuse of this discretion as to'justify the setting aside the -judgment, it is clear ■ that .the-defendant might have attended court; The cause of his inability alleged, was a complaint in his face, arising, as the, witness at first supposed, from intoxication ; afterwards he thought it was occasioned by poison: he had but a day or two before walked ten miles. As the first adjournment was • at the request of the defendant* and, for any thing, that appears, for as long a time as he wanted in order to prepare for the trial; *229and as the dispensing -with the affidavit of the.party himself was a question proper for the justice, and resting in sound, discretion, we think the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Killmer v. Crary
Court Name: New York Supreme Court
Date Published: May 15, 1816
Citation: 13 Johns. 228
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.