Keppele v. Williams

Keppele v. Williams. Practice. — Continuance. It is a contempt, to pocket the venire. A Venire had issued, and the jury was summoned: the plaintiff forbade the sheriff to bring the jury to the court. On the day of trial, the plaintiff’s attorney demanded the venire. Defendant’s attorney opposed it, and advised the sheriff to deliver it into court. The jury also attended, upon the application of defendant’s attorney. The court was then moved for their direction. [MAJORITY] They took the venire and called for the panel. The Chief Justice quoting the following authorities, to show that it would be a contempt to pocket the venire: Comb. 303; (4 Mod. 367) Jones v. Earl of Bath; Vin. Abr., tit. Trial, 329. The plaintiff then moved to continue the cause, which was allowed, defendant having no proviso rule. Defendant then moved for a proviso rule, to which plaintiff objected, and made affidavit of the absence of a material witness, and service of a subpoena, on which the motion dropped. Here terminate all the decisions, previously to the Revolution,, which I have been able to collect. For the cases, from the first page to the close of the seventeenth, I am indebted to the Hon. Edward Shippen, Esquire ; who obligingly permitted me to publish them from his manuscript, in the possession of Mr. Burd. The rest of the cases, through the kindness of the Attorney-General, I have had an opportunity of extracting from the notebook of the deceased Joseph Reed, Esquire, formerly President of this state.