Case ID: wheel-cr-cas_1/html/0140-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People vs. John Warner.
    A counsel bas no right to demand a copy of the indictment of the District Attorney. He the^defk" the court,who nmnt of^the usual fees, copy “ot^copies.
    1N this case N. B. Graham read an affidavit in the common.form, to put off the trial to the next term : stating the _ - . . . „ absence oí material witnesses, &c.
    
      Maxwell opposed the motion,
    and contended that the rr ’ indictment was found on the 7th of this month, and was ^own f°r trial this day: that it was the first time he'had understood the prisoner was not ready,
    
      Graham replied that he was not ready:
    that he had not been spoken to before this morning, and was of course unprepared : that he had not received a copy of the indictment, and hoped hereafter that counsel would be furnished with a copy.
    
      Maxwell replied that the law did not require that he should furnish counsel with copies of indictments : that upon application to the clerk, and payment of fees, they would be furnished with copies.
   The Court

observed that this was the first complaint they had heard of this nature: that if counsel thought it necessary for the defence of their client to obtain a copy of the indictment, the clerk was the proper officer to apply to, and that he was compelled to furnish a copy or copies on payment of the usual fees.