Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 S.C.L. 113

Allen v. Donelly

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided January 15, 1821

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1821-01-15

.A.CTION of assumpsit on a note. In this case the defendant’s attorney was called, and did not appear. He had not obtained permission of the Court ‘in be absent. The case went to the jury on the proof of the hand writing of the defendant. Verdict for plaintiff. Before the verdict was recorded, the defendant’s attorney appeared in court, and obtained the consent of the opposite attorney to open the case, and proceeded to read án affidavit to support a motion for continuance.

Decided 1821-01-15

Mr. Justice Huger

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2,. The proceedings of the court would be extremely embarrassed, if not altogether arrested, were the absence of one of the attorneys, without permission, to be regarded as sufficient to entitle him to set aside the proceedings of the court after the verdict yvas signed and delivered to the clerk. The affidavit for postponement in this case was permitted to be read, to enable the Judge to ascertain if the defendant could make out such a case as would autho-rise a departure from the long establised rules of the Court. The affidavit, however, so far froth furnishing sufficient grounds for setting aside the proceedings in their then state, disclosed such laches* on the part of the defendant, that had not the case been submitted to the jury, A continuance could not have been had.

¶3The motion must therefore be refused.

Justices Nott, Cokock, Gantt and Richardson, concurred-
/12/scl/113 · .json · Public domain