Case Name: Den ex dem. Miller and Brown against Reed
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1817-02
Citations: 4 N.J.L. 350
Docket Number: 
Parties: Den ex dem. Miller and Brown against Reed.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 399–400

Head Matter:
Den ex dem. Miller and Brown against Reed.
THIS cause, being at issue, was carried down for trial, at the Gloucester circuit, in November 1816. The defendant was a tenant, the landlord not having been made a party on the record. A rule for a view had been taken by the plaintiff at the preceding term of the court, and the view had. At the circuit, the landlord came in and made affidavit, that the tenant had not given him notice of the view, nor did he take any part in it; which he would have done, if he had been informed of it, as he considered his rights materially affected by it. That he lived at a great distance from the court, and had a very late notice of trial. Upon this affidavit the court postponed the trial, upon payment of the usual costs; and it was referred to the court at bar, whether to these costs, should be added, the costs of the view.
Trial postjy1.1^ view,
vjew‘j)aid by pariy appiy- ^ or
It wTas insisted by White and Armstrong, that the landlord being no party on the record, had no right to be present at the view, or take part in it; and that the favour of postponing the cause on his account, ought to have been granted only on such terms as should not injure the —plaintiff. It was matter of discretion in the court, and it ought to have imposed terms; that the defendant ought to have been required to pay these costs, before the trial was postponed.
L. H. Stockton,
for the defendant, insisted, that the landlord had rights, which justified the court in postponing, on his application; and that these costs could not be given to the plaintiff, being in the same situation as costs of struck juries.»
See Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1 Hal. 159. Houston ads. Woodward, 2 Har. 344.

Opinion:
By the court,
Rossell J.
dissenting. We cannot give the costs of the view in this case. We consider the law as explicit and conclusive.
Costs refused.