
    Pliny Freeman vs. William King.
    ■Where Defendant swore to witnesses, to change the venue in an action of as: sumpsit, without stating any reason or cause why so many were necessary for him—be- " ing the usual affidavit, and Plaintiff swore to three to retain the venue: the motion was denied, on the ground that no excuse was given why so-many witnesses were necessary for Defendant, in such 'an action. See 2 Howard, 130. . ■
    
      December Special Term, 1846.
    
      Motion by defendant to change venue, from the city and county of New York, to the county of Lewis.—This was an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note, venue laid in the city and county of Hew York.
    Defendant moved on the usual formal affidavit with seventy-eight witnesses as material, to Mg defence, residing in, Lewis county.
    Plaintiff’s affidavit stated that he believed the number of witnesses istated by Defendant to be material for Ms defence, was a fraud upon the court, and upon the Plaintiff-—and that if the motion was not denied on Defendants own papers, he should be required to disclose the cause ;and".reason,of the materiality of the witnesses. Plaintiff swore to three witnesses residing in Hew York, as being material and-necessary Tor ffiim; on the trial of .the cause.
    P. CAGGER, Defts Counsel. E. & W. Collins, Defts Attys.
    
    G. R. J. Bowdoin, Plffs Counsel. 0. Bushnell, Plffs Atty.
    
   Jewett, Justice.

Denied the motion, on the ground that nd excuse was given why seventy-eight witnesses were necessary to the defence ‘of áú" action on a promissory note.  