
    April, 1809.
    ANONYMOUS.
    After an alii-davit in support of a sontinuaneeof a canse*or> the ground of the absence of a iessThas been rnsde, the op-may make a counter aflida-%it, statino-any circumstances that render it impossible, or Srthí'eVi-dence of the witness canbe obtained with Se^ime- but such counter ■affidavit roust not deny the materiality of the evidence,
    ON motion For ilie continuance, of ibis cause, the . .. made an affidavit stating the absence of Jom/ik Howlands jun. a malt rial witness, and that he hoped to procure the testimony of the witness at the next court, * é
    
    A counter affidavit was filed, stating that Josefih Etonv-¡an(¡y jUn. was gone to foreign parts: that he expected to have no fixed residence; and that he did not expect • , to return withm two or three years.
   The Court

would not continue the cause; and took the opportunity to observe, that there was manifest uy¡jjty |n counter affidavits, as was evident from the J present instance. They said, however, that counter affidavits should not deny the materiality of the evidence eXpected from the witness, but might stale any circum-r . stances, that rendered it impossible, or improbable, that . , , , .... , . his testimony could be procured within a reasonable time.

Ebwakds. J.

said, that the English practice was lame in this respect; that it threw great power into the hands of a party ; and that this court was perfectly free to establish a bctc f'uctH.o [Ie added, that the whole English piaciiee oí admitting aiuuavits was moatm.  