Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Wright 499

Lafferty v. Ross

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1834

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1834-04-15

<p>Non suit after evidence — opening a non suit — fining a witness.</p> <p>"Where the plaintiff progresses with his testimony, expecting a witness in time to examine him, he will be permitted to enter a non suit.</p> <p>The non suit will be opened up at his cost, if the statute of limitations will bar a new suit.</p> <p>A witness who is detained from court by his own dilatory movements until the cause in which he is summoned is sacrificed, will be fined.</p>

Decided 1834-04-15

BY THE COURT.

¶1This application is addressed to our discretion. The absence of the witness was known before the trial, and was good ground for a continuance, if one had been applied for. If it were not for the statute of limitations, we should leave the party to his new suit; as it is, the non suit is opened up; the plaintiff to pay all the costs which have accrued until the making up of the issue, and the cause is continued.

¶2The witness whose non attendance occasioned the non suit, was *513brought in on an attachment, and being interrogated, said he had been subpoenaed, and intended to come to court. Had hired a horse last night, but could not get started this morning in season to get to court, fourteen miles, until eleven o’clock.

¶3BY THE COURT. The business of the court cannot proceed unless its process is obeyed; no execuse is offered here: the party only moved so dilatorily that he failed to arrive until after the cause was sacrificed. He is ordered to pay a fine of two dollars and costs.

/1/wright/499 · .json · Public domain