Bowman v. Ely

2 Wend. 250
New York Supreme Court·Decided February 15, 1829·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

By the Court, Marcy, J.

The plaintiff not resisting by shewing a greater number of witnesses on his part, resi[251] ding in the county where the venue is laid, the motion must prevail. The court will not, on any speculative opinion, formed by individuals, however respectable, interfere with the ordinary course and practice of the court in the administration of justice. Pervading as may be the excitement referred to, the court repose confidence in the intelligence and integrity of the freeholders of Monroe. Should it unfortunately happen that the apprehension of the plaintiff is realized, he will not be remediless, as it will then be in sufficient time to interpose the strong arm of the law to cause the course of justice to flow unpolluted by passion or prejudice.

Motion denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bowman v. Ely, 2 Wend. 250 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1829).

2 Wend. 250 (Bowman v. Ely) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Buck v. Reighard
85 N.E.2d 302 (Fulton County Court of Common Pleas, 1949)
People v. Diamond
36 Misc. 71 (New York Supreme Court, 1901)
People v. Snaith
8 N.Y.S. 668 (New York Supreme Court, 1889)
People v. Graham
21 Cal. 261 (California Supreme Court, 1862)
Cochecho Railroad v. Farrington
26 N.H. 428 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1853)
Murray v. New Jersey Railroad & Transportation Co.
23 N.J.L. 63 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1850)
Bank of Cleveland v. Ward
11 Ohio St. 128 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1841)
Messenger v. Holmes
12 Wend. 203 (New York Supreme Court, 1834)