Case ID: scl_2/html/0440-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      The court\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph Hort against Elijah Jones.
    
      Columbia,
    
    1802.
    In order to som°ff a good fo'be'assi'gned as reasons to the court for delaying ei-ívho vasPreZ roenf'not^to Suse 01untU ívere readyls not a sufficient reason tor delay, as it ■might happen that one of them might -never be ready. See this case, mUe.
    
    - VERDICT for plaintiff. Motion for a new trial.
    In this case, it was alleged as a ground for this motion, the defendant was hurried on to trial by surprise, when he was not ready ; and that after an agreement between “ ° him and the plaintiff, that the cause should not be hurried or pressed on to trial, till both parties were ready. But it was admitted, that none of the affidavits stating these facts had been offered or submitted to the circuit court as grounds I°r putting °ff the trial, but all made since as grounds for pne motion for a new trial.
   The court

observed, that they had gone quite far enough in the case of Douglass and Frizzle, in which case, however, the plaintiff had sworn, that he was prevented from attending court in time by unavoidable accident, which was not denied, and that his witnesses were also prevented by accident. In the present case, however, nothing appeared or was assigned as a reason for the defendant’s not being ready for trial, or for preventing the attendance of his witnesses, but an agreement that the cause should not be hurried or pressed on till both parties were ready. This, they observed, was an agreement, which trifled with the rules and justice of the court, as it was easy to see, that an artful designing man might turn such an agreement into a pretext for delay as long as he pleased, as peradventure he never might be ready.

Rule for a new trial dismissed.

AH the Judges present.