23. Stating or reading the law..... 137 24. Interrupting for correction.. 17. Use of document not in evidence.. 138 25. Judge may interpose.... BRIEF ON Jury Trial in Civil Actions. I. APPLICATIONS TO POSTPONE. [The diversity in laxity and strictness in different Courts in applying these rules, makes it important to notice that they ought to be administered in view of the consideration that the right of trial by jury involves on the one hand the right to a reasonably prompt trial, and on the other hand the right to reasonable opportunity to get one's evidence in Court, and to have his witnesses examined there under oath. Hence has arisen the modern rule, that at least after a first postponement' an application for further postponement involves a question of right; and although the grounds are necessarily to some extent discretionary, the exercise of the discretion is generally reviewable at least by the full bench in the same Court, and usually, in case of the inferior State Courts, by the appellate Court.] 3. Absence of witness; neglect to 11. Opposing the motion admitting the desired facts. 14. Imposing conditions-costs. 15. stipulation against abatement. 16. Remedy for refusal. 1. Absence of the party.-Absence of the party himself from the trial, without good cause shown, is not ground for a postponement as matter of right; and it is not enough to show that he remains away in reliance upon his attorney's advice that the case would not be reached.2 1 Tucker vs. Garner, 25 Kans., 454. Pardridge vs. Wing, 75 Ill., 236. Absence, from sudden illness, has been held to make it Douglass vs. Blakemore, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.), 564. Contra, where illness was shown only by physician's cer- Schnell vs. Rothbath, 71 Ill., 83. A general allegation that the party's presence was necessary Pate vs. Tait, 72 Ind., 450; s. c., 6 Weekly Cin. Law 2 Brock vs. South. & North. Ala. R. R. Co., 65 Ala., 79. 2. of counsel.-Absence of attorney or counsel, without good cause shown, is not ground of postponement as matter of right.1 Illness may make it matter of right, where it is impracticable, with due diligence, to secure other counsel in time.2 In the absence of any regulation to the contrary, actual engagement of counsel in the trial or argument of a cause in another Court at the same time, is good ground for claiming a postponement; but absence on other engagements is not. 1 Whitehall vs. Lane, 61 Ind., 93. Kern Valley Bank vs. Chester, 55 Cal., 49. Even though he be new counsel called in for the first time. 2 Rice vs. Melendy, 36 Iowa, 166. So also where counsel was kept away by illness in his Thompson vs. Thornton, 41 Cal., 626. |