
    William Allen vs. William Donelly.
    Where an attorney was absent when his cause was called, and the casto went to the jury, and a verdict brought in and delivered to the clerk, but not recorded, and he obtained the consent of the opposite party to open the case, the Court, after hearing an insufficient affidavit for a postponement, refused to set aside the verdict and to open the case; as it conceived from the affidavit, that the defendant could hot make out such a case as would authorize a departure from its long established rules.
    .A.CTION of assumpsit on a note.
    In this case the defendant’s attorney was called, and did not appear. He had not obtained permission of the Court ‘in be absent. The case went to the jury on the proof of the hand writing of the defendant. Verdict for plaintiff. Before the verdict was recorded, the defendant’s attorney appeared in court, and obtained the consent of the opposite attorney to open the case, and proceeded to read án affidavit to support a motion for continuance.
    The court not being sátisfied with the affidavit referred to, proceeded with the case ; and the verdict was then recorded.
    A motion was now made for a new trial on several grounds, all of which will be considered under the following : ,
    As the verdict was not recorded, the defendant’s attorney was not too late to avail himself of the consent of the opposite party to submit a motion for postponement.
    2dly. That there was sufficient cause shewn for the postponement of the cáse.
   Mr. Justice Huger

delivered the opinion of the Court.

,. The proceedings of the court would be extremely embarrassed, if not altogether arrested, were the absence of one of the attorneys, without permission, to be regarded as sufficient to entitle him to set aside the proceedings of the court after the verdict yvas signed and delivered to the clerk. The affidavit for postponement in this case was permitted to be read, to enable the Judge to ascertain if the defendant could make out such a case as would autho-rise a departure from the long establised rules of the Court. The affidavit, however, so far froth furnishing sufficient grounds for setting aside the proceedings in their then state, disclosed such laches* on the part of the defendant, that had not the case been submitted to the jury, A continuance could not have been had.

The motion must therefore be refused.

Justices Nott, Cokock, Gantt and Richardson, concurred-  