Springer v. Mendenhall

said they had continued a cause at the first term, where |the defendant was imprisoned out of the State, and where his counsel was not instructed in his defence, (Canby vs. Griffin, 3 Harr. Rep. 333;) and refused a continuance in the same case at the next [term, when the defendant had been brought back and sentenced to Imprisonment on conviction for a felony. They had also continued a *382 cause at the first term, where the plaintiff was in solitary confinement under sentence of this court, his counsel not being permitted to see him. (Chandler vs. Barker, 1 Harr. Rep. 316.) But this is a different case. The plaintiff was at large until six weeks before the term, when he was committed on articles of the peace exhibited against him; he has been out of prison for a week past; he had counsel before his imprisonment, and might have instructed him by letter whilst in prison, or personally since his discharge.

Motion refused.