
    James Truax against John Roberts. 
    
    ON CERTIORARI.
    WALL attorney.
    It appeared that Truax on the morning of trial, had for a contempt, been, by the Court of Oyer and Terminer, then sitting in the county of Monmouth, committed to close confinement, in the jail of that county, and that he continued in confinement un* *til after the trial, so as to be altogether unable to attend. It appeared further, that he regularly filed a plea, claiming from the plaintiff a considerable balance in his favour; had subpoenaed his witnesses and made every preparation for the trial; and that the cause being tried in his absence, a judgment for a large amount, was rendered against him.
    
      
      
         Cited in Dayton vs. Burnet, 3 Hal. 253. Probasco vs. Hartough, 5 Hal. 56. Terhune vs. Barcalow, 6 Hal. 42. Paterson R. R. vs. Ackerman, 4 Zed. 536. Horner vs. Conover, 2 Dutch. 138. See also Loring vs. Ramsey, Pen. *630. Sherrard vs. Olden, 1 Hal. 344 Matthews vs. Allaire, 6 Hal. 242. Combs vs. Johnson, 7 Hal. 244. Lacy vs. Cox, 3 Gr. 469. Coyle vs. Coyle, 2 Dutch. 132. Apgar vs. Degraw, 4 Dutch. 527. Howell vs. Van Ness, 2 Vr. 443. Gulick vs. Thompson, post 292. Davis ads. Winants, 3 Har. 306. Abrams vs. Wood, ante 30.
      
    
   Upon this state of facts, the court ordered a reversal. A party who wishes to be heard, must be heard. The confinement could not have been anticipated, and ought not to deprive the party of his rights.  