Satterlee v. Groot
New York Supreme Court
moved to change the venue from Albany to Schenectady. He read an affidavit of the defendant, that he had thirteen witnesses residing in Schenectady, whose testimony, as he was advised by counsel and verily believed, would be material to his defence ; but lie did not add that, as he was advised by counsel and believed, he could not safely proceed to trial without their testimony; and therefore, objected that the affidavit was defective.
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
The point has not before been raised; and the practice has been different. There is often a very great laxity of swearing upon these motions; and the party should certainly be liolden to express himself clearly. That the witnesses are material, implies perhaps that the party cannot safely proceed without them; but the expression may be considered equivocal by the party. That witnesses residing in the county to which the venue is sought to be changed, know of a material fact, is not enough. A dozen witnesses residing in the county where the venue is laid, may know the same thing; and be…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Smith v. MackNew York Supreme Court · 1893