State v. Pike
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Indictment, for conspiring with Stephen B. Brewster, and other persons, to the jury unknown, to defraud one William A. Woods of a large quantity of wood, by pretending to purchase the same. When the attorney-general had closed the evidence for the State, a motion was made by the defendant’s counsel for a continuance, on account of the absence of a material witness, residing without the State.
Read the full summary
Indictment, for conspiring with Stephen B. Brewster, and other persons, to the jury unknown, to defraud one William A. Woods of a large quantity of wood, by pretending to purchase the same. When the attorney-general had closed the evidence for the State, a motion was made by the defendant’s counsel for a continuance, on account of the absence of a material witness, residing without the State. Affidavits were exhibited, showing the facts to which the witness would testify, the means taken to cause his attendance, and the reasons for his not attending at the time of the trial. Notice of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Gilchrist, O. J.
The continuance, or other delay of the trial of a cause that is in order for trial, is obtained upon motion of the party desiring it, addressed to the discretion of the judge. This discretion is not reduced to rules, although certain rules have been framed with a view of limiting its exercise. But it was not their design to change, in any manner, the general cognizance of the court over the matters to which they relate, which must, from its nature and aim, be final and exclusive. Perhaps the exercise of this discretion has in some particulars and for a long time been so…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Pessin v. Keeneland Ass'nDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1969
- Morley v. Cranmore Skimobiles, Inc.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1946