Bowen v. Douglass

Headnote

August Sittings, 1790. Bowen versus Douglass. THE Plaintiff had taken out a subpoena, returnable to December term last, for two witneffes, who lived in Montgomery County; but as they did not then appear, an attachment, directed to the Sheriff of Montgomery County, was issued, returnable to the succeeding March- term; when, likewise, default was made in the appearance of the witneffes; and the caufe was continued on a rule for trial at the next term or Non Pros. Another fubpcena had been taken out, returnable this day, on which the caiife was marked for trial; but it proved as ineffectual as the preceding writs. Under tírele circumftances, Levy, for the Plaintiff, moved to po’ftpone the trial. He Hated (and it was not denied by the op-pofite counfel). that an application.on his part to take the depo-fitions of the witneffes had been refufed : And he read a letter from the Sheriff of Montgomery, to ihew that an attempt had been made to ferve the attachment uppn the witneffes ; a certificate from the do&ors to prove, that one of the witneffes was fick; and a certificate from difinterefted and credible perfons to prove that the other witnefs was out of the way. 1. Dali. Rep. 251. SchloJJer v. Lefjer. M'Kean, for the Defendant, objefted to the poftpqnement; and infilled, that the rule for trial, or Non Pros, ought to be enforced, as the Plaintiff, having neglected to issue a second attachment, had not done every thing in his power to procure the attendance of the witnesses.

OCR confidence 0.619 is below 0.7. This text was read from a scan and contains transcription errors. It may be relied on for what the case decided, but must not be presented as a verbatim quotation.