
    Latimer and Yard against Ridge.
    Thursday, December 29Ui.
    To entitle a party to demand of referees that they will altoproduce**6 testimony, he must shew them what it is, why he is not able then to produce it, and that he expects to obtain it in a reasonable time. A naked allegation that he desires further time is not sufficient.
    'TpHIS and a cross action by Ridge against Latimer and Tard, were referred under a rule of court to arbitrators, who found against Ridge in both suits; and the exception upon which it was now attempted to set aside the award was, that the arbitrators had refused to allow Ridge sufficient time to produce bis evidence,
    
      From the examination of one of the referees it appeared, that at their first meeting in April or May 1808, the parties were present, and certain documents relating to a transaction in the West Indies were read, particularly the deposition of Richard Foster, taken under a commission from this court, returned and filed the 10th November 1806. That on their second meeting, the 11th July, Ridge did not attend, but wrote to Mr. Yard, one of the parties, that he was not prepared, for want of papers. That on the 15th September, the referees again met, when the counsel of Ridge addressed to them a letter, stating that Ridge had never seen the evidence of Foster, until it was produced before the referees, and desiring further time to procure testimony. That they again met on the 5th November, when the counsel of Ridge a second time wrote for a continuance, Ridge not having obtained his testimony; and that they met finally on the 19th November, when they received a letter from Ridge himself to the same effect. On this day they concluded their award, having refused further time. Ridge did not personally attend either of the three last meetings.
    Brown, for the defendant,
    read the affidavit of Joseph Hutchinson, the witness whom Ridge was desirous of opposing to Foster, stating his knowledge of the matter, his absence from Philadelphia for some months, and his arrival here on the 30th November 1808. He then contended that the referees had precipitated the hearing, contrary to the interests of justice and the rules of law. It was a case he said involving the character of his client; and all he desired was, that the same referees should hear this witness, who was now for the first time in the defendant’s power.
    Tilghman, in support of the award,
    said that the refusal of Ridge personally to attend the meeting of the referees, and confining the communication to letters, would alone have jus- • tifié cl- the referees in refusing time; for they had a right to >-5í[üestion him upon any point they thought materially connected with his demand of time, to ascertain whether it was not an affectation of delay. But further, the letters did not state how much time he wanted, for what particular object he wanted it, what were his expectations of procuring testimony by delay, nor what pains he had before taken to provide it. He was in fact guilty of laches at the outset; Foster’s testimony had been "nearly two years returned under a commission in his own suit, when it was first read to the referees, and had also been five months before them, when a continuance on that account was first asked.
    
      Hopkinson replied,
    that no objection was made at the time to the absence of Ridge, or to his communications by letter. The referees had in fact acknowledged the propriety of the request, by granting time, but had erred in granting it for six weeks only, when a continuance in court would have given three months. Hutchinson was absent during the whole period of the reference, and returned ten days after the award. Ridge did not know of his evidence until the 15th September, the day on which his counsel asked for time to procure it. There were of course no laches in the case; and it results to the simple question whether reasonable time was allowed.
   Tilghman C. J.

The exception is that the referees have acted improperly in not giving further time. We think that the exception is not supported, because Ridge did not inform the referees what evidence he wanted, the reason why he was not able then to produce it, and that he expected to be able to produce it in a reasonable time. A court of justice would not have granted a continuance, unless all these circumstances had been satisfactorily shewn. This court must decide on general principles. It is to be distinctly understood that a naked allegation, that a party desires further time to produce testimony* is not sufficient. It would tend to infinite delay.

Per Curiam, Award confirmed.  