
    Annin against Chase.
    for triafagrS t¡e3by one Pd> thereby’conduauffidrat rauae® ar°?ecofldDS a” Where an adjournment bas been granted In a justice’s
    IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court.
    After issue was. joined in the court below, the defendant m error, who was the plaintiff below, applied for an adjournment, which was granted, and a day fixed on by the parties. On the adjourned day, the defendant below applied for a farther adjournment, and offered to swear that he had material witnesses absent; that he had subpoenaed them, and used due diligence, and expected to procure them, &c. But the justice decided, that as the parties had mutually agreed upon a day for' trial, they were now concluded; and refused, on that ground, to grant a further adjournment. Judgment was given in the court below for the defendant in error.
   Per Curiam.

Injustice has been done. According to the cases of Easton v. Coe, (2 Johns. Rep. 383.,). and Powers v. Lockwood, (9 Johns. Rep. 133.,) the justice should not have refused a. second adjournment, on the ground assumed by him, no question being made as to security.

Judgment reversed.  