Cogswell v. Meech
New York Supreme Court
This action was tried at the Albany circuit, before the Hon. J ames Vanderpoel, one of the circuit judges. In the first count of the declaration the plaintiff states that a suit commenced against him in the Monroe common pleas, was noticed for trial at the March term 1831 of that court, and that previous to the term, Meech, the defendant was duly subposnaed to attend as a witness on the part of the plaintiff in this cause.
Read the full summary
This action was tried at the Albany circuit, before the Hon. J ames Vanderpoel, one of the circuit judges. In the first count of the declaration the plaintiff states that a suit commenced against him in the Monroe common pleas, was noticed for trial at the March term 1831 of that court, and that previous to the term, Meech, the defendant was duly subposnaed to attend as a witness on the part of the plaintiff in this cause. He then avers that Meech did not attend as such witness, in consequence whereof he was obliged to expend fifty dollars in obtaining a postponement of the trial. By means…
1Opinion of the Court
*149 By the Court,
Savage, Ch.’ J.
Whether the nonsuit was directed upon one or both of the grounds taken by the defendant’s counsel, is not stated. Tt is proper, therefore, to express an opinion upon each. 1. The non-attendance of the witness was properly proved by parol evidence. The existence of the suit was shown by the record ; but the record does not prove any thing as to the attendance of witnesses. It is not the duty of the clerk to enter in his minutes the name of every person called by the crier at the request of a party whose cause is about to be brought on. The attendance of a witness…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wilkie v. ChadwickNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- United States v. WoolseyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1845
- Watts' Administrators v. KinneyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1843