Case Name: Charles E. Frances, Plaintiff, v. Hart D. Graves, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-12
Citations: 29 Misc. 656
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles E. Frances, Plaintiff, v. Hart D. Graves, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 656–657

Head Matter:
Charles E. Frances, Plaintiff, v. Hart D. Graves, Defendant.
(Supreme Court, Albany Special Term,
December, 1899.
Place of trial — County where transactions took place.
Where the number of material witnesses is about equal on either side of a case, the place of trial will be determined by the county in which the transactions in suit took place.
.Motion to change place of trial from Rensselaer to Steuben county.
Lewis E. Griffith, for plaintiff.
J ames Flaherty, for defendant.

Opinion:
Chester, J.
On this motion to change the place of trial from Rensselaer to Steuben county the defendant swears to the materiality of twenty-nine witnesses residing in the latter county, three in the adjoining county of Ontario and one in the adjoining county of Yates. The plaintiff shows that he has seventeen witnesses residing in Rensselaer county and three in the adjoining county of Albany who are material in support of his case upon the trial. The plaintiff also furnishes an affidavit of interviews with sixteen of the alleged witnesses for the defendant tending to show that they are not in fact material to the defendant's case. As to eight or ten of the witnesses so interviewed, it is apparent that their materiality is questionable, but I do not thinlr this is so as to the others. This still leaves the defendant swearing to several more material witnesses than the plaintiff. More than this, all the transactions between the parties took place in Steuben county, and in cases where the witnesses are about equally divided, as here, that fact, under the authorities, should be given much weight in determining the place of trial. Adriance, Platt & Co. v. Coon, 15 App. Div. 92; Bell v. Whithead Brothers Co., 5 id. 555; Payne v. Eureka Electric Co., 88 Hun, 250; Smith v. Mack, 70 id. 517; Maynard v. Chase, 30 N. Y. St. Repr. 348; Peck v. Parker, 15 Wkly. Dig. 142.
It seems to me, therefore, that this motion must be -granted, with ten dollars costs, to abide the event.
Motion granted, with ten dollars costs, to abide event,