Briasco v. Lawrence

New York Supreme Court

Briasco v. Lawrence

4 N.Y.S. 94, 21 N.Y. St. Rep. 964, 51 Hun 643, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 209

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 11, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 N.Y.S. 94 (Briasco v. Lawrence) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Briasco v. Lawrence, 4 N.Y.S. 94, 21 N.Y. St. Rep. 964, 51 Hun 643, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 209 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnard, P. J.

There are two reasons why this order should not be granted. The action is one for oral slander, and it does not appear by the papers that the plaintiff is not a resident of the county of Kings, which is designated as the place of trial in the complaint. The place of trial would be proper in a county in which one of the parties resided when the action was commenced. Code, §§ 982-984. The affidavits seem to point to the convenience of the witnesses as the reason for the proposed change. One material witness is named living in Westchester county, and it is stated that “at least five other material and necessary witnesses” reside in that county. The answer to this is that the issue is not joined, and it is premature to move to change the place of trial for the convenience of witnesses before it is. The materiality of the witnesses cannot be ascertained until the issue is complete. The order should be reversed, with costs to abide the event.

Pratt, J. The defendant was premature in making this motion. Before serving his answer-it was impossible to determine what witnesses would be material, or whether any witnesses would be necessary, upon the trial. It is altogether probable that the witness Lydia Ann Lawrence will be a material witness upon the trial, and that it will be impossible for her to attend a court held out of the county where she resides; but the decisions are too numerous and uniform upon this point to be disregarded. To permit such practice would be a premium upon loches. The defendant had ample time to answer, and should have done so before asking for a change of venue. The affidavit is also defective in failing to state that defendant has stated to his counsel what he expects to prove by his various witnesses. Order reversed, with costs and disbursements.

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

Barnard, P. J.

There are two reasons why this order should not be granted. The action is one for oral slander, and it does not appear by the papers that the plaintiff is not a resident of the county of Kings, which is designated as the place of trial in the complaint. The place of trial would be proper in a county in which one of the parties resided when the action was commenced. Code, §§ 982-984. The affidavits seem to point to the convenience of the witnesses as the reason for the proposed change. One material witness is named living in Westchester county, and it is stated that “at least five other material and necessary witnesses” reside in that county. The answer to this is that the issue is not joined, and it is premature to move to change the place of trial for the convenience of witnesses before it is. The materiality of the witnesses cannot be ascertained until the issue is complete. The order should be reversed, with costs to abide the event.

Pratt, J. The defendant was premature in making this motion. Before serving his answer-it was impossible to determine what witnesses would be material, or whether any witnesses would be necessary, upon the trial. It is altogether probable that the witness Lydia Ann Lawrence will be a material witness upon the trial, and that it will be impossible for her to attend a court held out of the county where she resides; but the decisions are too numerous and uniform upon this point to be disregarded. To permit such practice would be a premium upon loches. The defendant had ample time to answer, and should have done so before asking for a change of venue. The affidavit is also defective in failing to state that defendant has stated to his counsel what he expects to prove by his various witnesses. Order reversed, with costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 N.Y.S. 94, 21 N.Y. St. Rep. 964, 51 Hun 643, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briasco-v-lawrence-nysupct-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack