History
  • No items yet
midpage
Rose v. Stuyvesant
8 Johns. 426
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1811
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

The only point is about the regularity of refusing the adjournment. Another point was made, that the justice refused to admit the father to defend; but the return does not justify this objection.

Under the second section of the act, the justice had a" discretion, on the non-appearance of the defendant below, to put off the hearing of the cause, to such reasonable time, as he should appoint, not exceeding six days. (sess. 31. c. 204.)

This discretion is not an arbitrary one: it ought to be soundly and judiciously exercised. The situation of Rose's child was such as ought to have induced the justice to put off the trial. We are of opinion, therefore^ that the judgment ought to be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Case Details

Case Name: Rose v. Stuyvesant
Court Name: New York Supreme Court
Date Published: Oct 15, 1811
Citation: 8 Johns. 426
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.