
    [Philadelphia,
    Tuesday, Dec. 17, 1811.]
    Davidson against Brown.
    An affidavit that A was a material witness, that he had gone to Lisbon and was expected to return by the next court, and that the party did not know of his going until three or four days before he went, and did not advert to the circumstance of his being a material witness, is not a sufficient ground for postponing the trial.
    In this case an order was made at Nisi Prius in November last, that judgment should be entered for the plaintiff on the first day of this term, subject to the Court’s opinion upon the question, whether a sufficient ground of postponement was laid at Nisi Prius by the following affidavit; if the Court should be of opinion that there was, then a new trial to be granted.
    “ Armit Brown, the defendant above named, being duly affirmed, saith, that Elijah Brown” (the affirmant’s brother) “ is a material witness in this cause, without whose testimony the defendant cannot safely go to trial. That in the month of June last, the said Elijah Brown sailed from Philadelphia for Lisbon, upon a sudden determination known to this affirmant but a short time, three or four days, before his departure, and has not since returned. That the affirmant did not advert at the time to the circumstance of the said Elijah’s testimony being material to the defence in this cause, or he would have taken his deposition. That the said Elijah is expected to return before the next sitting of this court, .at which time the defendant expects to have the benefit of his testimony.”
    
      * Tod for the plaintiff.
    
      Ghauneey for the defendant.
   The Court being of opinion, after a short argument, that the deposition did not acquit the defendant of laches, ordered that the judgment should stand.

New trial refused, and Judgment for plaintiff.

[Cited in 1 M. 284.]  