If a party and his witness are absent, the Court will require that the absence of the party be accounted for, before they continue the cause.
The Court were of opinion that it was first necessary to account, in some satisfactory way, for the absence of the party himself; and then proof might be received as to the materiality of the witness, as far as it could be made by a third person. That it would be extremely mischievous to continue causes upon the naked ground of the party and his witness being absent; for he might absent himself and keep back his witness for the very purpose of delaying the trial, and thereby harass his adversary at pleasure.
NOTE. — See Wheaton v. Cross, 3 N.C. 154; Sheppard v. Cook, ibid., 241.
(111)