
    The State against Lewis.
    Where a prisoner has been committed to gaol for a capital of-fence, only a short time previous to the sitting of the court, or during the session, so that he could not he prepared for his defence ; in such ca^e the court will postpone his trial, in order to give him ail opportunity of procuring his witnesses.
    THE prisoner Lewis was charged with horse-stealing, and committed to prison for the offence, on the day previous to the session of the court. The grand jury having found a bill against him, he was brought into court and arraigned, and upon being asked if he was prepared for his trial, he answered in the negative. His counsel then moved to postpone his trial, upon an affidavit of the absence of some material witnesses, which was opposed by the
    Attorney-General, as having a tendency to establish a precedent of a very dangerous nature. He went at large into the nature and frequency of the offence ; the necessity of putting a speedy and effectual check to it; and urged, that if prisoners were permitted to postpone their trials on their own affidavits, in the manner moved for, scarcely one in ten would be brought to justice* It was easy to foresee, he said, that every man accused of horse-stealing, might make in future a simple affidavit, and by that means, and from the circumstances of the Circuit Courts being held only twice in the year, would gain six months’ indulgence. In the interim, as there was scarcely a secure gaol in the country districts, he might, with the assistance of confede*' rates, effect his escape, and thus elude the justice of his country. *
    The counsel for the prisoner answered, that the present motion was an appeal to the justice of the court, not to hurry a fellow-citizen prematurely into a trial, which might affect his life, without granting him every opportunity of being thoroughly prepared for his defence. Having been committed only one day before the commencement of the session, it was improbable that he should be ready for trial: and particularly when he had deposed that several witnesses, who could make his innocence appear, were at such a distance, as to have rendered it impossible for him to have had their testimony in due time. With regard to the reasons urged against the dangerous tendency of the precedent, they applied with equal force on behalf of the prisoner: for public justice, and the rights of humanity, required that every citizen (whom die law presumed innocent till found guilty) should have a fair and impartial trial, and every reasonable indulgence allowed him, to procure his witnesses. That there was no crime so great, no proceedings so instantaneous, but what the Court would, upon reasonable grounds, grant this motion. Black. Rep. 514. It was very much a matter of course in civil cases; and if so in matters of property, the rule would, a fortiori, hold much stronger in capital cases affecting a man’s life.
   Grimke, J.

was of opinion, that upon the grounds urged by the prisoner’s counsel, and for the reasons set forth in the affidavit, the trial ought to be postponed. He observed, that there was a great difference between the case of a prisoner who had been committed only a day or two previous to the sitting of the court, or during its session, and who, for the reasons mentioned, could not be supposed to be ready for trial; and that of one, who had sufficient time to summon his witnesses, and be fully prepared. The rule of law for putting off trials, was the same in criminal, as in civil cases. And the Court never would hurry on an unfortunate fellow-citizen to a trial, without giving him a reasonable time to prepare for his defence, however dangerous the nature of the offence might be, of which he stood accused. And relied on the case of Lord Kilmarnock and others, Fast. 2. as in point on this head.

The trial was accordingly put off, till the ensuing court of sessions.

Note. Although the above is only a Nisi Prius case, yet it has ever since been relied on as a case in point, in all cases of a similar nature.  