Majority
p. 17The People, vs. John Lee. called on the trial the next day after the indictment was found. moved to postpone it, tmtil witnesses could be had from Boston: he read a general affidavit of the • , i, _ _ . . _ . pnsoner, that he had a witness .in Boston who was material to his defence; but the affidavit did not state that due diligence had been used, or that the prisoner expected to be able to procure his testimony by a certain tim,e. r J J
Headnote
wip„ot hurry on a trial at it appears the in fou^buJone áa7 previous; and the prisoner makes-oath that he witness who ís. “jaterial 5 but does not state that he ^ligeT^e- ¿or that he ex-testimony at a <*rtainGrand Larceny.
John Lee was charged with stealing a number of articles of wearing apparel, from on board the schooner Scott, of Baltimore, lying in the East River, on the 29th of An-*“■1832-
He was arrested and committed during the session of Grand Jury, and a Bill was immediately found against him.
Maxwell, District Attorney,
Price, counsel for the prisoner,
“ We think it would be too precipitate “ to hurry on the trial at this term, notwithstanding the “ informality of the affidavit oí the prisoner: he was ar- “ rested the day before yesterday on this charge and the “ Grand Jury sent up the Bill yesterday; besides, it is “ nearly the close of the term: v/e will, under all the cir- “ cumstances, adjourn it over to the next term, and at that “ time lake such order upon it as the case may require:
p. 18
“ ™ t^ie mean t™6; iet the prisoner take care to use every “ means in his power to procure his testimony from Bos u (on) ]f ¡Ie has.any,” “