Strayer,
J.:—I
ordered
the
adjournment
sine
die
of
the
trial
set
for
June
8
and
9,
1992,
granted
at
the
request
of
the
plaintiff
and
with
the
consent
of
the
defendant.
However,
I
asked
counsel
for
the
plaintiff
to
appear
before
me
on
June
9
to
explain
the
delay,
recognizing
that
the
matter
could
not
proceed
but
wishing
to
have
for
the
record
the
circumstances
necessitating
this
adjournment.
Counsel
filed
an
affidavit
of
the
plaintiff
and
appeared.
The
trial
dates
of
June
8
and
9,
1992,
were
fixed
by
the
Court
at
the
request
of
counsel
on
November
21,
1991.
Normally
the
Court
would
expect,
and
insist
on,
the
trial
going
ahead
in
the
absence
of
some
very
good
justification
for
an
adjournment.
In
this
case
counsel
for
the
plaintiff,
Mr.
Andrew
Hawrish,
died
in
January,
1992
but
no
request
was
made
for
an
adjournment
until
the
present
counsel
for
the
plaintiff,
Mr.
Allan
Haubrich,
wrote
to
the
Court
on
May
19,
1992
requesting
the
adjournment.
This
was
a
very
late
date
to
be
seeking
an
adjournment
considering
that
the
Court
had
assigned
a
judge
and
other
resources
to
this
trial
many
months
before
and
had
been
keeping
them
available.
It
emerged,
however,
in
an
affidavit
by
the
plaintiff
that
he
had
not
even
been
aware
until
April
that
Mr.
Hawrish
had
died
and
it
was
not
until
May
5,
1992
that
he
retained
Mr.
Haubrich
to
represent
him
in
this
case.
It
then
took
Mr.
Haubrich
some
time
to
seek
all
the
relevant
material
and
he
had
still
not
been
able
to
see
it
all
by
May
19
when
he
requested
an
adjournment.
Under
the
circumstances
no
responsibility
can
be
assigned
to
the
plaintiff
or
his
present
counsel
for
an
adjournment
being
required
at
this
late
date.
Adjournment
granted.
Email this Content