
    
      BARRY vs. LOUISIANA INSURANCE COMPANY.
    
    A cause will be continued, on account of the indisposition of the counsel, who intended to argue it, although there be another counsel engaged.
    
      Post, 493.
    Appeal from the court of the first district.
    Duncan, for the defendants,
    prayed for a continuance, on the ground that Workman, who was employed with him, and had undertaken to argue the case, was prevented by indisposition from attending.
    This was opposed by Livermore, for the plaintiff.
    who insisted that the mover, who was employed by the defendants, was equally able to defend them, and that the cause turned on a single point, a very plain one.
   The court

observed, they could not inquire, on a motion for a continuance, how plain were the points on which a cause was to be determined: that, to do so, would consume often as much time as to try the cause; that when a counsel was really prevented by indisposition to attend, the client might suffer great injury if the cause was pressed in the absence of the one of his counsel, who had taken on himself the labouring oar.

East’n District.

Dec. 1822.

The cause was continued and ordered to be put at the head of those which were to be set down for hearing on the following Monday.  