.MTM3MA.MTE2NTE3: Difference between revisions

From Newberry Transcribe
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "2 wanted to have the plaintiff present. The Judge thought not. I the..? him Art: 536 - "Judgments & Costs" of Louisiana Costs of practice & referred that in Common Law, th...")
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
2
2
wanted to have the plaintiff present. The Judge thought not. I [[the..?]] him Art: 536 - "Judgments & Costs" of Louisiana Costs of practice & referred that in Common Law, that in the absence of the Plaintiff or his attorney - I claimed a non-[[/wit?]]. The Judge opened his eyes, put on his spectacles, looked into his law books & found I was right.  He then commenced testimony? & c ac-turning over the leaves of a book containing Statuary Laws of Texas, and [[allemntity?]] persuaded himself that his court had a similar attribute as the District court of staying actions say for 10 days. I admitted the point,  being persuaded that the Plaintiff in all probability would not appear. It being a [[gai?]] transaction -
wanted to have the Plaintiff present. The Judge thought not. I shewed him Art: 536 - "Judgments & Costs" of Louisiana Code of practice & referred that in Common Law, that in the absence of the Plaintiff or his Attorney - I claimed a non-suit. The Judge opened his eyes, put on his spectacles, looked into his law books & found I was right.  He then commenced testimony & re-turning over the leaves of a book containing the Statuary Laws of Texas, and ultimately persuaded himself that his court had a similar attribute as the District court of staying actions say for 10 days. I admitted this point,  being persuaded that the Plaintiff in all probability would not appear. It being a [?queer?] transaction -
   The next case was a claim against my client of 120 x part only of which was admitted,
   The next case was a claim against my client of 120x part only of which was admitted,
 
91

Latest revision as of 05:41, 18 February 2021

2 wanted to have the Plaintiff present. The Judge thought not. I shewed him Art: 536 - "Judgments & Costs" of Louisiana Code of practice & referred that in Common Law, that in the absence of the Plaintiff or his Attorney - I claimed a non-suit. The Judge opened his eyes, put on his spectacles, looked into his law books & found I was right. He then commenced testimony & re-turning over the leaves of a book containing the Statuary Laws of Texas, and ultimately persuaded himself that his court had a similar attribute as the District court of staying actions say for 10 days. I admitted this point, being persuaded that the Plaintiff in all probability would not appear. It being a [?queer?] transaction -

 The next case was a claim against my client of 120x part only of which was admitted,

91