W. A. Crider v. Peter Smith, Etc.

W. A. Crider v. Peter Smith, Etc. Pleadings — Amendment After Reversal — Discretion of the Court. The appellant chose to stand by his original answer. He might then have amended and set up the matters contained in the amendment he offered to file on the return of the case, and it was his duty to have done so. He does not claim that he has discovered the defenses now sought to be made since the first trial in the Circuit Court. APPEAL PROM OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT. November 1, 1872. [MAJORITY — Judge Lindsay:] Opinion by Judge Lindsay: Although it was within the power of the Circuit Judge to permit further pleading upon the part of appellant upon the return of this cause to his court, yet we cannot say that he abused a sound discretion in refusing to permit either of the amended answers offered to be filed. Appellant chose to stand by his original answer, when the demurrer to it was sustained. He might then have amended, and set up the matter contained in said two amendments, and it was his duty then to have done so. He does not claim that he has discovered the existence of the defenses now sought to be made since the first trial in the circuit court, and offers no explanation of his failure or refusal to rely upon them at that time. DeHaven, Rodman, for appellant. Carroll, Lee & Rodman, for appellees. The judgment appealed from must be affirmed.