
    A. & E. Scheitlin vs. Hezekiah Allen.
    A Scire facias against a bail will not be continued, because the principal, absent in California, lias been sent for by Attorney and is expected to return before the next term.
    Scire facias against the defendant as bail of Geo. W. Chesley. The defendant moved for a continuance and made affidavit that the principal had, without his knowledge, departed for California, where he now is ; that since his departure he has had various communications, from which he had been led to expect him in March last j that nevertheless, as early as February, he had sent an agent with power of Attorney to bring the said Chesley, and had no doubt that he would either voluntarily return or be brought here before the next term of the Court.
    Tillinghast & Bradley, for the plaintiff.
    Currey, for the defendant.
   Per curiam.

We do not see how we can interfere in such a case. The contract of the bail is to answer the judgment of the Court in case the principal avoids. The contingency, upon which the liability of the bail accrues, has taken place, and now he endeavors to use the default, which he contracted to answer for, as a reason for postponing the fulfilment of his contract. It is true that where the principal is absent from the State, in the course of business, and is taken sick or is unable to return from any other visitation of Providence, the Court will grant a continuance, because, in such case, there is no avoidance by the principal, who is inevitably detained. We wili, however, allow the case to remain open until the end of the term.  