
    SHIPP vs. GALE.
    A motion was made for a re-hearing of this cause.
    67«w,for the plaintiff in error.
    — The record shewed the fact that Shipp had made oath that he had material witnesses absent; that he had not summoned them, owing to a belief that the order for the change of venue would remove the cause. The decision of this court, in the case of Pearpoint vs. Creamor, and two others therein mentioned, were considered as deciding the doctrine we contended for, that the cause could be removed at any time. This impression had got out, and was acted on. The rule that a man must know the law, always a hard and rigid one, ought not to be construed so as to deprive a man of a fair trial. The oath of Shipp that he acted under a belief that the law was otherwise than this court has decided it to be, is the only kind of evidence that can be resorted to. It must be taken to be true, unless contradicted. It is a kind of suit too, (slander)
    
      April 19th.
    
    An order for a change of ve» nue does not remove a caufe, unlefs it be deposed 30 days before the term of the court in which the caufe is depending.
    
      May 13th.
    The neglefl: of the party to prepare for trial becaufe he believed an order for a change of venue would remove a csufe, though lodged at any time, is no ground for a continuance.
    That a term of the court in which a fuit is depending,hath intervened, between the granting an order for a change of ve-?ue>and ‘-Is 6e* the°cietjc does not prevent ,he ««•«’* le-C 6
    
      
       Spring term 1802. The cauies flood in this court Pearpoint vs. Shelly circuit courty on a mandamus*
      
    
   Br the Court

— It is too late to present a judge*s order for a change of venue, at the trial court; it ought to be deposited with the clerk at least thirty days before the trial court; and this the defendant should have taken notice of at his peril. He therefore was not entitled to the continuance which he prayed for on that ground.-J udgment affirmed. iri which Gale, the plaintiff below, ought to have given every opportunity for a fair trial.

May 18th.

Judge Tiumble,

delivered the resolution of the court: — The court have looked into the cases cited. In those cases, the order for the change of venue had been filed, about sixty days before the term ; and the question there decided, was, that a term having intervened after granting the order before it was filed, did not prevent its having its effect when regularly filed. We cannot see on what ground the inference attempted to Be drawn from those cases, is bottomed. There is nothing in them to warrant it. If the public were deceived or misled on that point, we have no evidence of it in the cause.- — —Motion overruled.  