Lizardi v. Arthur
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OS THE PIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. This is an action against the makers and endorsers of a promjSsory note duly protested for non-payment. Arthur, one of the defendants, who was arrested, made a sPec'al defence. The others pleaded the general issue. On the trial, defendants’ witnesses were called, and not being present, attachments issued.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OS THE PIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. This is an action against the makers and endorsers of a promjSsory note duly protested for non-payment. Arthur, one of the defendants, who was arrested, made a sPec'al defence. The others pleaded the general issue. On the trial, defendants’ witnesses were called, and not being present, attachments issued. Towards 3 o’clock the witnesses not appearing, defendants’ attorney moved for time to send for his clients ; stating they could probably be found at their counting-house in the city, and might make affidavit of the materiality of the…
1Opinion of the CourtMorphy, J.
The defendants complain that an application for a continuance made by their counsel, was improperly overruled. From the bill of exceptions taken to the judge’s opinion, it . . ° ' . appears that certain witnesses, summoned in the cause,having fa'le<l 1° attend, they were ordered to be attached. At about 3 o’clock, P. M., the return of the sheriff was, that they could not be found ; thereupon, the counsel moved for time sen(^ f°r defendants, that they might make their oath as materiality of the testimony of said witnesses. This , i » • . was refused, on the ground that parties are bound to be…
2Cited by3 opinions
- McDonald v. BadieLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1940
- Mongrue v. MongrueLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1981
- Wimbish v. WadeSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1869