Case Name: McPHERSON (F. M. C.) vs. ROBINSON ET AL.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1832-10
Citations: 4 La. 563
Docket Number: 
Parties: McPHERSON (F. M. C.) vs. ROBINSON ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 563–564

Head Matter:
McPHERSON (F. M. C.) vs. ROBINSON ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE SIXTH DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OF THE SEVENTH PRESIDING.
Where the defendant has been cited about four months before court, is absent when the suit is called for trial, and has taken no preparatory steps for his defence, but has only spoken to his counsel to attend to any business of his which might arise in court; although his counsel makes affidavit that he has a good defence and believes his rights will be much injured if the cause is tried without an opportunity of consulting him, but is not aware of anyproof in his favor, it will not be good ground for a continuance of the cause.
The plaintiff sues for his freedom, alleging that he is a free man of color, born free in the island of St. Domingo, from whence he removed to the United States with his mother, a free woman, and settled in Alexandria, District of Columbia. From thence he was taken and held as a slave, and sold in New-Orleans to Abner Robinson, and now claimed by M. & T. J. Wells. The Wells’s plead a general denial, aver that the plaintiff is still a slave, and call Robinson in warranty. Robinson made default. About eighteen months after the suit was filed, it came on for final trial. Mr. Flint, of counsel for Robinson, made affidavit for further time to answer; that he could not go to trial until he could see his client, who was absent from the state; and that he expected his client had a good defence, but did not know what kind of proof he had, &c. He moved to continue the cause on this affidavit, which motion was overruled, and a bill of exceptions taken.
There was verdict and judgement, giving the plaintiff his freedom and two hundred dollars for his services; allowing M. & T. J. Wells one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars on their warranty against A. Robinson. The latter appealed.
The only question was on the bill of exception, ruling the defendant Robinson to trial, and refusing his motion for a continuance.
Where the aerendant has been cited a-months before court, is absent when the suit is called for trial, and has taken no preparatory steps for his defence, but has only spoken to his counsel to attend to any business of his which- might arise in court; although his counsel makes affidavit that lie has a good believes his much injured tried without an opportunity him,Cbut ?s not proof in°Msf£ vor, it will not fojfa° contlimanee of the cause.
Rigg, for defendant. Flint, for plaintiff.

Opinion:
Martin, J., ' '
delivered the opinion of the court. r
This case is placed before us on a bill of exceptions, taken to the opinion of the court refusing the defendant further time to answer. The application was grounded on the affidavit of Flint, that in the summer the defendant, Robinson, was in the parish, and requested Flint and Thomas to attend to any business of his which might arise in court; that Robinson is now, as the affiant believes, out of the state, but is shortly to return; that Flint and Thomas are, by the consent of all the defendants, to attend to Robinson's interest, as well as to 7 those of his co-defendants, but will not be able to do so with justice to Robinson, unless they have the opportunity of consulting him, and without being furnished by him with information and testimony to establish his rights; that at this term a judgement by default was taken, four or five days ago only; that the affiant expects that Robinson would be able to make out a good defence, but is not aware of any proof in Robinson's favor. He believes Robinson's rights will be much injured if the cause be tried without his counsel having the opportunity of consulting him.
The citation was served on Robinson personally, about four months before the date of the affidavit. He does not appear t0 have taken the least trouble as to any preparations for his defence. Nothing is shown to authorize the belief that he intends to make any defence, except the opinion exPresse<l by the affiant, that he has a good one. Nothing renders it probable that it is not owing to great neglect and carelessness that his counsel are not enabled to defend him. The judge> ™ our opinion did not err in refusing further time,
R is? therefore, ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the judgement be affirmed, with costs, J °