Locker v. Wigglesworth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Locker v. Wigglesworth

29 Ky. 568, 6 J.J. Marsh. 568, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 256

DecidedOctober 19, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Ky. 568 (Locker v. Wigglesworth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Locker v. Wigglesworth, 29 Ky. 568, 6 J.J. Marsh. 568, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 256 (Ky. Ct. App. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief-Justice Robertson

delivered the opinion of the court.

FROM the facts exhibited by the record, in this case, we are of opinion that the plaintiff in error was improperly forced into trial, at the term the judgment was obtained against him. On his motion for a continuance, he swore to facts calculated to shew, that by the conduct of his adversary, he had been thrown off his guard, and induced to omit to make the necessary preparation for his defence, which otherwise he would have made. The circuit court overruled his motion for a continuance, as it seerns, because, by the directions of his lawyer, he refused to reduce to writing in the form of affidavit, the facts sworn to. It would have been proper to require a written affidavit in the first instance, but after he had been sworn and examined, and had made statements entitling him to a continuance, it was wrong to force him to trial, merely because he would not oiler a written affidavit.

The judgment must be reversed with costs, and the cause remanded for new proceedings to be had.

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

Chief-Justice Robertson

delivered the opinion of the court.

FROM the facts exhibited by the record, in this case, we are of opinion that the plaintiff in error was improperly forced into trial, at the term the judgment was obtained against him. On his motion for a continuance, he swore to facts calculated to shew, that by the conduct of his adversary, he had been thrown off his guard, and induced to omit to make the necessary preparation for his defence, which otherwise he would have made. The circuit court overruled his motion for a continuance, as it seerns, because, by the directions of his lawyer, he refused to reduce to writing in the form of affidavit, the facts sworn to. It would have been proper to require a written affidavit in the first instance, but after he had been sworn and examined, and had made statements entitling him to a continuance, it was wrong to force him to trial, merely because he would not oiler a written affidavit.

The judgment must be reversed with costs, and the cause remanded for new proceedings to be had.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Ky. 568, 6 J.J. Marsh. 568, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/locker-v-wigglesworth-kyctapp-1831.