Case ID: scl_13/html/0250-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Williamson vs. Cummings.
    WHRB13 a defendant states by affidavit that he has a. substantial dé ■ fence, and plamiy shows that there bad been a mistake between himself and his attorney, the court wifi suffer such defendant to enter picas and nuke his defence, notwithstanding no appearance had been entered the first term, after the service of the writ. Such indulgence will be allowed whenever by misfortune or mistake his appearance has not been entered at the usual time, f See Parr vs. F/uam, 1 McCord, 283. J