Case ID: njl_3/html/0564-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pennington, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PIERSON against MILLAN.
    ON CERTIORARI.
    A justice may, for his own convenience, adjourn a trial, not exceeding the legal limitation.
    It appeared by the record, that the warrant was returned on the 10th December, 1811; that the parties appeared, and on the motion of the defendant, the cause was adjourned to the 17th of the same month; and that on that day, the trial was adjourned by consent to the 21st; that on the 21st, the justice adjourned [737] the cause until the 24th, for his own convenience and this adjournment of the justice is assigned for error.
    
      Kinney, for plaintiff.
   Pennington, J.

The objection to this judgment is, that tfye justice adjourned the cause for his own convenience. The justice has a discretion to adjourn the cause, so that his adjournment does not exceed fifteen days from the return day of the summons. It is true that the act says that this adjournment is to be made to prevent fraud or surprise, or on reasonable cause assigned. * I think it would be giving the act too rigid a costruction, to say that the justice, within the [*] fifteen days, could not adjourn the cause, even for his own convenience, unless this should be done manifestly for the purpose of vexation or oppression, and this is not even suggested. I am, therefore, for affirming this judgment.

The other justices were of opinion that the judgment be affirmed, as they could not perceive any error in the proceedings below.

Judgment affirmed.

Cited in Lloyd v. Hance, 1 Harr. 127.