Killmer v. Crary

13 Johns. 228
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1816
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 13 Johns. 228 (Killmer v. Crary) 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
Killmer v. Crary, 13 Johns. 228 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1816).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only'question in this case is* whether the justice ought to have received the affidavit of the attorney, as to the absence and materiality of the Witnesses. This Was, .in'; Some manner,. á; matter resting in the spund discretion of the justice ; and .from the evidence returned, as to the inability of the defendant to attend the court, wq oannót say that there: was -such án abuse of this discretion as to'justify the setting aside the -judgment, it is clear ■ that .the-defendant might have attended court; The cause of his inability alleged, was a complaint in his face, arising, as the, witness at first supposed, from intoxication ; afterwards he thought it was occasioned by poison: he had but a day or two before walked ten miles. As the first adjournment was • at the request of the defendant* and, for any thing, that appears, for as long a time as he wanted in order to prepare for the trial; [229]*229and as the dispensing -with the affidavit of the.party himself was a question proper for the justice, and resting in sound, discretion, we think the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Mossman v. Dole
14 Haw. 365 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1902)
Carpenter v. Natoma Water & Mining Co.
63 Cal. 616 (California Supreme Court, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Johns. 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/killmer-v-crary-nysupct-1816.