SMYTHE v. BANKS, 4 U.S. 329 (1797)

U.S. Supreme Court

SMYTHE v. BANKS, 4 U.S. 329 (1797)

4 U.S. 329 (Dall.)

Smythe
v.
Banks.

Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District.

April Term, 1797

CAPIAS. The defendant was a resident of Virginia, and had been subpoenaed as a witness in the case of Symes's Lessee v. Irwine, which was marked for trial at the present term, but was continued on the 20th of April. He was arrested on the 26th of April; and the following day, Levy moved, that he should be discharged from the arrest and process, on account of the privilege of a witness, eundo, morando, et redeundo. 4 Com. Dig. 475. 2 Stra. 1094. 986.Vin. Abr. Tit. Priv.

By the COURT.

The witness is, undoubtedly, privileged from arrest, for a reasonable time, to prepare for his departure, and return to his home, as well as during his actual attendance upon the Court. But the privilege does not extend throughout the term, at which the cause is marked for trial; nor will it protect him while the witness is engaged in transacting his general private business, after he is discharged from the obligation of the subpoena.


U.S. Supreme Court

SMYTHE v. BANKS, 4 U.S. 329 (1797)

4 U.S. 329 (Dall.)

Smythe
v.
Banks.

Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District.

April Term, 1797

CAPIAS. The defendant was a resident of Virginia, and had been subpoenaed as a witness in the case of Symes's Lessee v. Irwine, which was marked for trial at the present term, but was continued on the 20th of April. He was arrested on the 26th of April; and the following day, Levy moved, that he should be discharged from the arrest and process, on account of the privilege of a witness, eundo, morando, et redeundo. 4 Com. Dig. 475. 2 Stra. 1094. 986.Vin. Abr. Tit. Priv.

By the COURT.

The witness is, undoubtedly, privileged from arrest, for a reasonable time, to prepare for his departure, and return to his home, as well as during his actual attendance upon the Court. But the privilege does not extend throughout the term, at which the cause is marked for trial; nor will it protect him while the witness is engaged in transacting his general private business, after he is discharged from the obligation of the subpoena.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.