Baker v. Sleight — 2 Cai. 46

Majority

p. 46

Baker and Sloane against Sleight, Sheriff of the County of Ulster.

Headnote

It is not necessary in an affidavit to change the venue, to state the cause of action. If it be not transitory it should be shown by the opposite side.

The influence from the mere office of sheriff not sufficient cause to changa the venue.

Evertson, on an affidavit not specifying the ground of action, moved to change the venue from the county of Dutchess to that of Ulster.

Rophins opposed it on a counter affidavit,

stating a belief, that in consequence of the influence the defendant possess ed in Ulster from his office, a fair and impartial trial could not be had there. He insisted also on the defectiveness oi the plaintiff’s affidavit, in not setting forth the ground of action, and that it ought therefore to be presumed it was not a transitory suit.

The court cannot intend that the action is not transitory; it ought to have been shown by the defendant, and the influence of a sheriff’s office never can prevent an impartial trial,^[1] Take your rule.

(a) (a) Sec Zobieskie v. Bauder, 1 Caines’ Rep. 488 n.(a)