Smelser v. Williams

This case was before us in 1843, and was remanded for anew trial.* 4 Robinson, 152. On the day fixed for the trial of the cause in the lower court, after the return of our mandate, the defendants moved for a continuance, on the *98ground of the absence of their principal counsel as stated in the affidavit presented, the associate counsel being also absent, and they having no counsel present. This motion was overruled, and the defendants took a bill of exceptions.

We are of opinion that the judge a quo erred, in refusing the continuance. The defendants’ affidavit shows that John P. Bullard,…