Anonymous
New York Supreme Court
moved to change the venue from the county of Oneida, &c. The motion turning on the balance of the number of witnesses. read the plaintiff’s affidavit of a ballance of number in Oneida. These were stated, by the affidavit, to be material and necessary, &c., and it was perfect as to the witnesses collectively; but did not say that each of them were material, &c., necessary, &c., and without each of whose testimony, &c., as advised, &c., he could not proceed to trial, &c.
1Opinion of the Court
And for this defect, the Chief Justice, (Woodworth and Sutherland, Js. being absent,) pronounced the affidavit defective.
Motion granted.(a),[2]
See Anonymous, 6 Cowen, 389, S. P.
Mr. Monell (Monell’s Pr. 2d. ed. 353, 'e# seq.) states the existing practice in the state of New York, as follows:—The most usual ground for a change *102-1of the place of trial is, that a greater number of witnesses reside in the county which it is proposed to have the place of trial changed, than in the county designated in the complaint; and this, ordinarily, is sufficient to procure the order; it is also proper to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. MackNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- Chapin v. OverinNew York Supreme Court · 1893