
    The People, vs. John Lee.
    wip„ot hurry on a trial at it appears the in fou^buJone áa7 previous; and the prisoner makes-oath that he witness who ís. “jaterial 5 but does not state that he ^ligeT^e- ¿or that he ex-testimony at a <*rtain
    
    
      Grand Larceny.
    
    John Lee was charged with stealing a number of articles of wearing apparel, from on board the schooner Scott, of Baltimore, lying in the East River, on the 29th of An-*“■1832-
    He was arrested and committed during the session of Grand Jury, and a Bill was immediately found against him.
    Maxwell, District Attorney,
    called on the trial the next day after the indictment was found.
    
      Price, counsel for the prisoner,
    moved to postpone it, tmtil witnesses could be had from Boston: he read a general affidavit of the • , i, _ _ . . _ . pnsoner, that he had a witness .in Boston who was material to his defence; but the affidavit did not state that due diligence had been used, or that the prisoner expected to be able to procure his testimony by a certain tim,e. r J J
    
   By the Court.

We think it would be too precipitate to hurry on the trial at this term, notwithstanding the “ informality of the affidavit oí the prisoner: he was ar- “ rested the day before yesterday on this charge and the “ Grand Jury sent up the Bill yesterday; besides, it is “ nearly the close of the term: v/e will, under all the cir- “ cumstances, adjourn it over to the next term, and at that “ time lake such order upon it as the case may require: “ ™ t^ie mean t™6; iet the prisoner take care to use every means in his power to procure his testimony from Bosu (on) ]f ¡Ie has.any,” “  