Case Name: The People vs. Geo. Vanderpool
Court: Manistee County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1869-12
Citations: 1 Mich. N.P. R. 73
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People vs. Geo. Vanderpool.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Michigan Nisi Prius Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 73–74

Head Matter:
The People vs. Geo. Vanderpool.
A defendant brought into court to answer to an information has a right to compulsory process for witnesses, and to a reasonable time for its service and return, after the filing of such information.
Manistee Circuit Court,
December, 1869.
In this case a motion was made for a continuance until the next term of the court. The affidavit of the respondent, on whidi the motion was predicated, in addition to the usual clause of merits, names of witnesses and the materiality of their testimony, sets forth that “ said cause was commenced on the 21st day of December inst., by the Prosecuting Attorney of said county filing an information in said Court charging this deponent with the crime of murder; that until the filing of the information as aforesaid the affiant did not know that he should be charged with any crime in said Court, and, therefore, has had no opportunity to prepare for his defense in the trial of said cause. And affiant further says that until he put in his plea of not guiity there was no issue joined in said Circuit Court, and until after such issue was joined this deponent could procure no valid subpoena issuing out of and under the seal of said Court to procure the attendance of said witnesses; and this deponent further says he has used all the means within his power to procure the attendance of the aforesaid witnesses on the trial of said cause, but has been unable so to do; that a subpoena for said witnesses was duly issued out of and under the seal of said Court on the 22d day of December inst., and' immediately placed in the hands of Charles Secor, Sheriff of said county, who has failed to serve the same. And this deponent further says he is informed and believes said witnesses are within the jurisdiction of this Court.’’
A counter affidavit was filed, showing that the witnesses named were within one hundred miles of the Court.
-Builis for the People.
Ramsdell & Benedict and S. W. Fowler for Respondent.

Opinion:
By the Gourt,
Ramsdell, J.
Under our statute defendants brought into court to answer to an information filed therein have a right to compulsory process to compel the attendance of their witnesses, after the filing of the information, and to sufficient length of time to have such process served and returned. The affidavit of defendant, as modified by the counter affidavit, shows good grounds for a postponement of the trial to a future day in term, but is not sufficient to entitle the defendant'to a continuance until the next term.