Case ID: dc_2/html/0204-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Union Bank of Georgetown v. Riggs.
    The Court will not receive a supplemental affidavit, to obtain a continuance of the cause.
    The affidavit for a continuance, on the ground of the absence of a witness, must state that the affiant believes that the cause cannot be tried with safety to the party applying for the continuance, without the attendance of the witness.
    The defendant’s affidavit, did not aver that he verily believed that the cause could not be tried with safely to himself, without the attendance of the absent witness.
    
      Mr. Key, for the plaintiff,
    objected to the continuance, upon the ground that the affidavit was imperfect by reason of the omission of that averment.
    
      Mr. Jones, for the defendant,
    contended that that averment is only matter of form, and that it is to be inferred from the facts stated.
    
      Mr. Swann, on the same side,
    stated that it was by his inadvertence that the averment was omitted.
    The defendant, being in court, offered an additional affidavit containing the averment.
    
      Mr. Key objected that it was too late; that supplemental affidavits were dangerous, &c.
    
      Mr. Jones contended that it was not too late, as the Court had not given its opinion' that the affidavit was insufficient.
   The Court

(Cranch, C. J., contra,)

refused to continue the cause, because the affidavit, without such an averment, was insufficient ; and said they would not receive a supplemental affidavit, after the original affidavit had been laid before the Court, and the defect has been pointed out by the opposite counsel; on account of the strong temptation it would hold out for perjury.