Case ID: cole-cai-cas_1/html/0108-01.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

Woods ads. Dill
    
    MOTION by the defendant for costs, because the plaintiff did not try the cause at the circuit after he had noticed it. It was objected to, because the failure was owing to the defendant himself, who, when the plaintiff was prepared to go on, took exception to the jury 'process, which the plaintiff himself acknowledged to be void.
    
      
      jBowman, for the defendant.
    
      Plmendorf for the plaintiff.
   Per Curiam.

The defect of the process was the plaintiff’s mistake, and the defendant was certainly under no obligation to go to trial on it, nor had the plaintiff any right to demand it of him.

Let the defendant take the effect of his motion.