United States v. Frink

4 Day 471
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut·Decided April 15, 1810·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Livingston, J.

said the trial must go on; and the party might apply for an attachment, or bring an action for damages. Such was the rule in England, and in JVew-York.

The District-Attorney stated that it was usual in Connecticut to delay a cause to afford time to bring in a witness.

Edwards, J.

coming in, at this time, it was ruled by The Court, after a short consultation, that the trial must proceed, unless the District-Attorney would make affidavit that he could not, in his opinion, safely try the cause, without the attendance of Palmer. More witnesses are usually summoned than are necessary; and it would be unreasonable to put off a trial on account of the absence of a witness who was not essential, or who could state nothing further than other witnesses in court.

Motion denied,

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

United States v. Frink, 4 Day 471 (circtdct 1810).

4 Day 471 (United States v. Frink) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Price v. People
23 N.E. 639 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1890)