|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
412 MCKIM v.. ODOM.
be prayed, that he might have a commission to take testimony;
and that the time for collecting and returning evidence might be
enlarged.
12th May, 1828.—BLAND, Chancellor.—Ordered, that the time
limited for the returning and filing of testimony authorized to be
taken by the interlocutory decree of the 4th of April last, be and
the same is hereby extended to the 15th of October next. That
the parties be and they are hereby authorized to take out a com-
mission for the purpose of taking testimony in any foreign country,
to be read in evidence in this case, on naming and striking com-
missioners as usual. Provided, that such commission be returned
on or before the 15th of October next; or that good cause be then
shewn why the same, with reasonable diligence, could not have
been returned by that time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soon after which the plaintiffs, by their petition on oath, stated
various matters and things in relation to the grounds upon which
this last order had been granted; and objected to the enlargement
of the time for collecting and returning testimony; alleging, that
the sole object of the defendant Law, was an unjust and unreason-
able delay. Upon which they prayed, that the order of the 12th
instant might be rescinded.
16th May, 1828.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The petition of the
plaintiffs, this day filed, having been submitted, has been read and
considered.
The time limited for taking and returning testimony in relation
to the accounts directed to be stated by the interlocutory decree of
the 14th of April last, was, as is usual in cases where there is
nothing in the proceedings from which what may be deemed a
reasonable time for that purpose can be inferred, and the parties
have not been heard upon that subject, fixed at a very short period.
And therefore I did not consider it proper on the 12th instant to
exact from, the party, on that, his first application for an extension
of the time, such strict proof of the necessity of having it enlarged,
as I should have done on a second application of the same na-
ture, or as would be required to obtain the continuance of a ease
standing regularly for hearing; therefore it is Ordered, that the
aforesaid petition be and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the 20th of June, 1828, these filed another bill
against these same defendants, in which the ownership, voyage,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
