Case Name: Baldwin against Carter
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1818-10
Citations: 15 Johns. 496
Docket Number: 
Parties: Baldwin against Carter.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 496–497

Head Matter:
Baldwin against Carter.
WhereinajM lice’s court the causehas been adjourned to a future day, at when the del pears”but t& does «otamíve until ándito about ítes“ií follow" tiffandtiiede" fendantonseeing the plaintiff goes away declaring that the cause is aithoug hap-prized by the justice that he should call it immediate); lay not, under the circumstances of the case, amount to a discontinuance, and a Jv, the delay does judgment rendered for the plaintiff on an zaparte hearing, will not be set aside, as the defendant must be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned parte hearin l the cause.
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court.
The defendant in error brought an action in the court be-o low against the plaintiff in error, in which, after issue joined, the cause was adjourned too future day, at two o’clock in the afternoon. The defendant below appeared at the time, but the justice did not come until three o’clock, or a little after, when, the plaintiifbelow not having arrived, the defendant urged the justice to call the cause. The justice, however, delayed un- ^ about twenty minutes after three, at which time the plai'n- ^ appeared, and the defendant, on seeing him, went away, declaring that the cause was out of court, by reason of the ° . , " delay, although the justice apprized him that he should call the cause immediately. The trial proceeded) and verdict and judgment were given for the plaintiff below.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The only point in this case is, whether the delay was such as to authorize the defendant below to consider the cause discontinued: and we think, under the circumstances stated in the case, that it was not. The defendant waited until the justice and plaintiff both arrived, and was apprized by the justice that he was about calling the parties. The defendant, therefore, wilfully absented himself after he knew that the trial was to take place: he must, therefore, be considered as having voluntarily abandoned his cause. (12 Johns. Rep. 217.) Had he gone away before the plaintiff appeared, and under an impression that the cause would not be called, the delay, perhaps, was such, as might now entitle him to relief; but the circumstances under which he withdrew destroy all ground of complaint. The judgment must accordingly be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.