
    Richardson against Brown.
    An agreement that the cause s],au adjourned 3 days, and. that then, if s. do a justice maysuoh^asdna^ayti™eee¿sn^e cessary to pro-a^ncc^ftha witness, is a mg agreement* revoketUvitiT out the consent of both parties.
    If such an agreement does not provide that security the justice760’ ad.)oum rity, this being F^fd parties.
    adjournment^ uP°n a wav~ rant, are not satisfied by an short r°?6that period; but the ídjoum™from ^“shorter™6’ riods than Pi2 time’Reached by an adgregate of the several adjournments/
    On certiorari to a Justice’s Court. Brown sued Richard- . , ^ , , , . . , ,, , son in the Court below, by warrant, issued against the tiefendand, a non-resident of the county where the suit was 7 J brought. The parties agreed, before the Justice, on the return of the warrant, to adjourn 3 days, and that, if S. Y. a witness, whom both parties wanted, should not attend at the adjourned day, then the Justice might adjourn for such reasonable time as he might deem necessary in order to procure S. F’s attendance. Accordingly, on the adjourned day, S. Y. not attending, the plaintiff asked a further adjournment, which being objected to by the defendant, the plaintiff made oath of S. F’s absence, and the Justice adjourned again for 7 days: at which day the defendant did not appear, and judgment was rendered against him.
    
      J. K. Paige, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      A. Van Ing’en, contra.
   Curia.

This proceeding to adjourn was under the 4th section of the 25 dollar act, and the Justice has not exceeded the 12 days for which he had a right to adjourn the cause on the application of either party. Besides, here was a valid and binding agreement between the parties, which neither had a right to rescind without the consent of the other. By this, they had authorized the Justice to ¿djourn. It is to he ? v presumed, that had it not been for the agreement, an application would have been made and granted, on the return of the warrant, to adjourn for a longer time than 3 days. The oath of the plaintiff was merely to satisfy the Justice, that it was proper to exercise the power given by the agreement, And as nothing was said in the agreement about giving seenrity on the adjournment, the right to it was waived.

judgment affirmed..  