Case Name: HOOK'S vs. PAGE
Court: Tennessee Superior Court of Law and Equity
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1807-10
Citations: 1 Overt. 250
Docket Number: 
Parties: HOOK’S vs. PAGE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 250–251

Head Matter:
HOOK’S vs. PAGE.
Action for a malicious prosecution.
The declaration recited, that the defendant had taken out a state warrant, charging him the plaintiff, with having feloniously taken and carried away a brindle pided steer, the property of the defendant, The record produced to support this part of the declaration was a writ describing the steer as a stray, which had been appraised in the possession of the defendant ; for this and other reasons, it was objected by Whiteside, that the record could not be given in evidence.
If a jurorbe challanged on account of his being summoned as a witness, tiers must be sworn to determine whether he indifferent or not—time to argue a motion for setting aside a not-suit will not be allowed unless cause be shewn.
Per Campell. J. and Overton, J.
The record cannot be given in evidence. (Powell, J. absent.)
For the defendant were cited, Esp. 531. court law, Roulst. 20. s. 62. For plaintiff, Esp. N. P. 530 1 Salk. 14.
Non Suit.
Note—John Ward who was summoned as a witness for the defendant was called as a juror and was challenged upon which much argument took place on both sides.
Per Curiam. This is a challenge for favour, and not a principal challenge—Let the two first on the sheriffs list be sworn on the jury, and as triers ; the court permitted these two when called, to be asked if they had formed any settled opinion.
When the triers were sworn, the person offered as a juror, was sworn and examined ; the two triers returned, and gave a verdict, that the person offered was indifferent, and then he was sworn on the panel.
Upon motion to set aside the non-suit, it was insisted that the court erred, in excluding the record, and stated that White and Haywood, were counsel for the plaintiff,that they were now absent,and prayed the court to allow of further time to argue till next term. It would be surprise to determine it now ; that no instance had taken place where the parties bad been refused time for further argument.
Barry for the defendant
cited, Esp. 214, 742. 2 Hay. 238. 162. 2. Salk. 265.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
If any probable ground can be shewn to the court,that another argument would tend to elucidate this matter, we will allow time ; the postponement of argument is certainly discretionary, and this case is too clear to require it.