Case Name: Matter of James Bartlett Hammond
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-06
Citations: 55 Misc. 124
Docket Number: 
Parties: Matter of James Bartlett Hammond.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 124–125

Head Matter:
Matter of James Bartlett Hammond.
(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
June, 1907.)
Insane persons — Inquisition — New trial; Costs.
Where, at some of the hearings in a proceeding to inquire into the sanity of respondent and when the most important testimony was given, his request for adjournment because of illness of counsel are refused and he engages other counsel whose request for an adjournment of two days in which to prepare for a hearing is also refused, a motion to open the respondent’s default, to set aside a verdict finding him insane and to direct the commissioners to reconvene and give him a reasonable opportunity to present his defense will be granted, but upon the condition that the costs and expenses of the proceeding to date be paid by him or his estate.
Motion to open default, set aside the verdict of the jury, and direct the commission heretofore appointed to reconvene and to give to respondent a reasonable opportunity to present his defense.
John Holden, for petitioner.
Quigg, Bostwick & Coleman, for respondent.

Opinion:
Blanchard, J.
This is a proceeding to inquire into the sanity of the respondent. Commissioners were duly appointed, a jury impanelled, several hearings were had and the case of the petitioner completed. At some of the hearings and when the most important testimony was given adjournments were asked on behalf of the respondent, because of the illness of counsel, and refused. Other counsel was engaged, who asked for an adjournment of two days in which to prepare for the hearings, and this was also refused. The respondent put in no evidence, and the jury found him insane. This is a motion to open the respondent's default, to set aside the verdict of the jury and to direct the commission heretofore appointed to reconvene and to give to the respondent a reasonable opportunity to present his defense. The motion is opposed on several grounds, most of them technical, and that there is no precedent for granting it. I am of the opinion, however', that these considerations are of minor consequence in face of the fact that the proceedings seek to deprive the respondent of his liberty and control of his property. Ho harm can come by opening the default and great injustice might result by not doing it. The costs and expenses of the proceeding to date, however, should be borne by the respondent or his estate, and the default will be opened upon that condition.
Motion granted.