Case ID: johns_11/html/0459-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wilde against Dunn, qui tam.
    NEW YORK,
    October, 1814.
    isJe^eaa“" afdea.pada"[ap* pears jJir ed, by the adlournment ot a cante, in the justice’s court, and the plain a^,par"ebuuhe {ormedthat Iw 3 near at haruL and delays calling amt nonouitinghim, on the motion of the del'emiant, who soon ?o,?rt; and the abó'umihour. a@cei,ro. “ddd4?dc the cause; this is not such an unreasonable delay as will work a discon* caust.te '
    l'N ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. The plaintiff in error, who was the defendant below, by attorney, pleaded a misnomer in abatement, upon which issue was joined, Dunn, the plaintiff below, then requested an adjournment, which L __7 »ii was granted until the 12th day of November, at two o clocic, _ n/r Jr* JAi*
    About three o’clock, or a little after, of the day to which the cause was adjourned, Mrs. Wilde appeared, with her attorney, and moved for a nonsuit, because the plaintiff did not appear: upon which the justice was informed by a witness for the plain- , 0 mi tiff, that the plaintiff was near at hand, on his way to court. I he . ’ . . T justice waived a decision on the motion tor a nonsuit, in a few minutes after, the motion was renewed; the justice told the defendant she must wait a little longer, and she then went out of court, but remained near at hand. Her attorney continued with the justice, and about a quarter before four o’clock, the plaintiff, Dunn, arrived. The parties were then called : the at--1 A torney for the defendant refused to appear; and the cause was . , . . . i.i •in tried ex parte; that is, the plea m abatement was considered as abandoned; and the plaintiff claimed a penalty for selling spirituous liquors without a license; which fact being proved, the justice gave judgment against the defendant for twenty-five dollars.
   Per Curiam,

There is ground to presume that the defendant below had no bona fide intention of defending the suit; and the delay after she appeared was not, under all circumstances, so unreasonable as to work a discontinuance : besides, her attorney was present during the trial. The judgment ought to be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.