About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Robert R. Barrow, Plaintiff in error, v. Nathaniel B. Hill U.S. 54 (1852)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0237 and id is 1 raw text is: SUPREME COURT. Barrow v. Hill. ROBERT R. BARROW, PLAINTIFF IN EREOR, V. NATHANIEL B. HILL. Where the only exceptions taken in the court below were to the refusals of tho coirt to continue the case to the next term; and it appears that the continuance asked for below and the suing out the writ of error were only for the purpose of delaying tho payment of a just debt, and no counsel appeared in this court on that side, the 17th rule will be applied and the judgment of the court below be affirmed with ten per cent. interest. THIs case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louis- iana. Hill was a citizen of South- Carolina, e.nd 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 iis petition in the Circuit Court of the United States. Barrow's arnswer 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 mate- rial 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 sum- mon said Fisher, but that the marshal has not been able to find him and serve him with a subpawa. Nevertheless, it appeared thdt on the next day, Fisherwas present in court and examined. The cot 'usion 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 d-efend- ant 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 Wvas the day before, seen by him in the city of New Orleans, and therefo;e the court declared that the testimony of the said witness 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 submit- ted; whereupon the counsel for the defendant excepts to the ruling of the court, and tenders this his bill of exceptions, pray- cor. the same may be signed and made a part of this re- cord. THE.o. L McCALEB, United States Tudge.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most