Case Name: SMITH v. ROOME
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1897-04-01
Citations: 44 N.Y.S. 784
Docket Number: 
Parties: SMITH v. ROOME.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 44
Pages: 784–784

Head Matter:
(20 Misc. Rep. 8.)
SMITH v. ROOME.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
April 1, 1897.)
CONTTNUANOB—ABSENCE OP WITNESS—MATERIALITY OP EVIDENCE.
The allegation in an affidavit that the absent witness told affiant “that he was present when the agreement set forth in the answer was made” is insufficient, as not showing that such statement was true, or that it is material.
Appeal from special term.
Action by Frederick H. Smith against William P. Roóme. From an order denying a motion for the postponement of the trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before FITZSIMORS, MCCARTHY, and CORLAR, JJ.
Thomson & Allen, for appellant.
James A. Dennison, for respondent.

Opinion:
FITZSIMONS, J.
There is nothing in the records submitted to us which shows that Weir was a material witness for the defendant, excepting the statement contained in the affidavit of Mr. Thompson, "That Weir told him that he was present when the agreement set forth in the answer was made." It may be true that he did make such statement, and yet it may also be true that such statement was untrue. When a party seeks for the postponement of a trial upon the ground of the absence of a material witness, it must appear by competent evidence that such person has knowledge of material facts. His mere saying so, sworn to by some other person, is not sufficient or competent proof to establish the claim that the statement made by the alleged witness is true. It must satisfactorily appear that his statement is true, as well as material. There is no such proof contained in the record submitted to us, and the trial justice was right in his refusal to grant an adjournment. The defendant also failed to establish by competent proof that his counsel was actually engaged when this inquest was taken. In fact, the record shows that they were not actually engaged, but apparently hoped to be, so as to be able to secure the adjournment requested.
The order appealed from therefore is affirmed, with costs. All concur.