Hensley v. Tucker
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from the Searcy Circuit Court.' The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion of this Court. contended that, as the affidavit for continuance was in strict conformity with the statute, (Dig., sec. 86, ch. 126,) and no opportunity was allowed to the appellant to procure his testimony, he was entitled to a continuance : also, that the Court erred in rendering judgment against Mark Hensley, who was no party to the cause.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Searcy Circuit Court.' The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion of this Court. contended that, as the affidavit for continuance was in strict conformity with the statute, (Dig., sec. 86, ch. 126,) and no opportunity was allowed to the appellant to procure his testimony, he was entitled to a continuance : also, that the Court erred in rendering judgment against Mark Hensley, who was no party to the cause. As the suit had been continued by the Justice of the Peace for the want of the same testimony, without any steps taken by the appellant to procure it, the case could not…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Walker
The Circuit Court must necessarily exercise its discretion in allowing or refusing continuances; and this Court will not undertake to control that discretion, unless from the facts it affirmatively appears that such discretion has been exercised to the prejudice of the legal rights of the party complaining of such decision. The discretion to be exercised must be a reasonable discretion, and when it is clearly otherwise, tending to deprive the litigant of the benefit of a fair hearing upon evidence in support of the issue, is subject to revision and correction on appeal or error. Ogden vs.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People v. VermilyeaNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Ogden v. PayneNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Hooker v. RogersNew York Supreme Court · 1827