Taylor v. Ringer

• Decision Date: 02 February 1888
• Parties: TAYLOR v. RINGER.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

19 P. 147

3 Wash.Terr. 539

TAYLOR v. RINGER.

Supreme Court of Territory of Washington

February 2, 1888

Appeal from district court, Second district.

Taylor & Bronston and Wilkersham & Murray for appellant.

Lewis Cox Bronson, for appellee.

TURNER J.

The appellant obtained a writ of certiorari to review an action decided against him, in the justice's court of CHARLES N. SENTER, in the city of Tacoma, on August 22, 1887. The petition for the writ, made agreeably to section 1850 of the Code, was as follows. Renwick W. Taylor, being first duly sworn, on his oath deposes and says "that heretofore to-wit, as appears by the records of the said justice's court, on the 6th day of August, A. D. 1887, a complaint in writing was made in said justice's court by L. M. Ringer against said Renwick W. Taylor, and that thereupon a notice was issued to M. Brottin, as constable, to be served upon said defendant, and the same was made returnable at 10 o'clock A. M., August 16, 1887; that on and before the said 16th day of August, A. D. 1887, the said plaintiff, the defendant not appearing at the time, nor no one by him authorized there to appear in his behalf, there and then moved for a continuance, and the said cause was then and there continued wrongfully and contrary to law from August _____ until the 20th day of August, A. D. 1887, at 10 o'clock A. M.; that on the 20th day of August, A. D 1887, the said defendant appeared specially in his own proper person, and moved the court for an order requiring plaintiff to furnish a cost-bond, and the said court thereupon filed said motion, and continued the said cause indefinitely, and until the said plaintiff should furnish said bond; that said continuance was made to an hour not certain; that thereafter plaintiff filed a written document not in conformity with the law in such behalf required, as will appear by the inspection of said document; that there is no verification to said bond, and the same is void; that upon the said day, the said court, the defendant, nor any one in his behalf, being present, wrongfully, arbitrarily, and illegally continued the said cause to the 21st day of August, A. D. 1887, at the hour of 10 o'clock A. M. of said 21st day of August; that said continuance was void and contrary to law, dies non judice; that thereafter, and on the following day, to-wit, Monday, August 22, A. D. 1887, E. W. Taylor, the then attorney for the said defendant, at the hour of 9 o'clock and forty-five minutes in the forenoon of said day, attended at the said justice's office for the purpose of protecting and attending to the interests of said defendant, as might be required; that said justice was not in his office at said time, and that the said E. W. Taylor, being necessarily engaged at the court-house, went away, and in twenty minutes thereafter, to-wit, at exactly the hour of five minutes after the hour of 10 o'clock A. M. of the said 22d day of August, A. D. 1887, the said E. W. Taylor, an attorney at law, appeared in said court, and asked to be allowed to appear and file pleadings in said cause, and the said justice wrongfully,...