Springer v. Mendenhall

3 Del. 381
Superior Court of Delaware·Decided July 5, 1841·Published

Opinion

The Court

said they had continued a cause at the first term, where |the defendant was imprisoned out of the State, and where his counsel was not instructed in his defence, (Canby vs. Griffin, 3 Harr. Rep. 333;) and refused a continuance in the same case at the next [term, when the defendant had been brought back and sentenced to Imprisonment on conviction for a felony. They had also continued a *382 cause at the first term, where the plaintiff was in solitary confinement under sentence of this court, his counsel not being permitted to see him. (Chandler vs. Barker, 1 Harr. Rep. 316.) But this is a different case. The plaintiff was at large until six weeks before the term, when he was committed on articles of the peace exhibited against him; he has been out of prison for a week past; he had counsel before his imprisonment, and might have instructed him by letter whilst in prison, or personally since his discharge.

J. A. Bayard, for plaintiff. Wales, for defendant.

Motion refused.

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

Springer v. Mendenhall, 3 Del. 381 (Del. Ct. App. 1841).

3 Del. 381 (Springer v. Mendenhall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bankers' Mortgage Co. v. Sohland
138 A. 361 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1927)