Anonymous
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut
ON motion For ilie continuance, of ibis cause, the . .. made an affidavit stating the absence of Jom/ik Howlands jun. a malt rial witness, and that he hoped to procure the testimony of the witness at the next court, * é A counter affidavit was filed, stating that Josefih Etonv-¡an(¡y jUn. was gone to foreign parts: that he expected to have no fixed residence; and that he did not expect • , to return withm two or three years.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
would not continue the cause; and took the opportunity to observe, that there was manifest uy¡jjty |n counter affidavits, as was evident from the J present instance. They said, however, that counter affidavits should not deny the materiality of the evidence eXpected from the witness, but might stale any circum-r . stances, that rendered it impossible, or improbable, that . , , , .... , . his testimony could be procured within a reasonable time.
Ebwakds. J.
said, that the English practice was lame in this respect; that it threw great power into the hands of a party ; and that this court…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hyde v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1856
- Lane v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- Scott v. ClevelandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Murry v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1876