Case Name: Wilde against Dunn, qui tam
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1814-10
Citations: 11 Johns. 459
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wilde against Dunn, qui tam.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 459–459

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.