Barrow v. Hill

by Roger B. Taney

United States Supreme Court

54 U.S. 54

Barrow  v.  Hill

THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Hill was a citizen of South Carolina, and sold two slaves to Barrow, a citizen of Louisiana. Barrow gave his note for $2,000, dated 12th of February, 1848, payable twelve months after date. When due, it was protested. Hill then filed his petition in the Circuit Court of the United States. Barrow's answer admitted the execution of the note, but alleged that the negroes were unsound. In April, 1850, the cause came on for trial. The counsel for the defendant moved the court for a continuance 'on the ground that William C. Fisher; a material witness for the defendant is absent or does not appear on the trial of this cause; that the said Fisher is in the city at this time; that defendant desired the clerk of this court to summon said Fisher, but that the marshal has not been able to find him and serve him with a subpoena. Nevertheless, it appeared that on the next day, Fisher was present in court and examined. The conclusion of the first bill of exceptions was as follows, viz.:

The defendant further declares that he has not induced or consented to said Fisher's absence; to all of which the defendant offered to swear, but the court overruled the motions on the ground that it appeared, by the declaration of the counsel for defendant, that the witness Fisher was the day before, seen by him in the city of New Orleans, and therefore the court declared that the testimony of the said withess would be received before the conclusion of the trial. Accordingly, the next morning, the witness appeared in court, and was regularly examined by the counsel of both defendant and plaintiff, and his testimony was commented on by counsel before the cause was finally submitted; whereupon the counsel for the defendant excepts to the ruling of the court, and tenders this his bill of exceptions, praying that the same may be signed and made a part of this record.

THEO. H. McCALEB, United States Judge.

The second bill of exceptions was as follows:

Be it remembered, that at the trial of this cause before the court, at the term aforesaid, the counsel for the defendant moved the court for a continuance, on the grounds that a commission was issued by this court on the 11th March, 1850, to take the testimony of William S. Green, a resident of the State of Kentucky, but supposed to be at that time on a plantation owned by said Green in the parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana. That the testimony of said Green is important, material, and necessary to the defence. That due diligence has been used to have this testimony of said Green taken, but that the said commission has not yet been returned to this court; to all of which the defendant offered to swear, but the court overruled the motion, on the ground that the commission had issued some time after issue joined, and subject to the right of the adverse party to have the case tried when regularly docketed; and also upon the ground that a sufficient time had been allowed for the return of said commission. Whereupon the counsel for defendant excepts to the ruling of the court and tenders this his bill of exceptions, praying that the same may be signed and made a part of the record.

THEO. H. McCALEB, United States Judge.

After hearing Fisher and another witness for the defendant, and a witness for the plaintiff, the court gave judgment for the plaintiff; whereupon the cause was brought up to this court upon the two exceptions above mentioned.

It was argued by Mr. Venable, for the defendant in error, no counsel appearing for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Venable said,-the only error assigned is, that the judge below overruled a motion for a continuance for reasons set forth in the bill of exceptions; an application for a continuance being addressed to the discretion of the court, it is submitted that, in this case, that discretion was soundly exercised; and the defendant prays that the judgment be affirmed. And, as it appears that this writ of error was sued out for delay, he further asks that damages may be awarded him, according to the seventeenth rule of this court.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

Notes