Speigner v. Cooner
Speigner v. Cooner
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
In this case the question presented is one which I supposed had long ago been settled. When I was a student of the South Carolina College, in 1811 -and .1812, mileage was taxed and allowed to me, as a witness attending the Courts of Newberry. When I was admitted to the bar in 1814, and ever since, so far as my practise or knowledge extended, it was uniformly allowed.
It will be seen that the allowance arose out of the County Court Act of 1785, § 16, P. L., 872: it provides, that “ a witness shall be allowed 2s. 6d., lawful money for every day’s attendance” and where the witness resides in or is summoned out of another county he shall be allowed 2d. per mile for coming to, or returning from Court,, besides ferriages. The same section provides and allows thirty miles per day for the travelling of a witness, in coming to or returning from Court, in the protection from arrest.
Putting these two provisions together the construction was that a witness should be allowed five shillings per day of thirty .miles travel. Looking to the fee bill of 1791, it will be seen that the allowance to a witness is not confined to the days attending Court. The two provisions on this subject are, 1st,' “ To each material witness attending Court residing in the cities, towns, or villages, where the Court is held, per day, two shillings and four pence.” “ Each witness from the country
A witness too- is not regarded as an officer of the Court; the per diem allowance, in the Act of 1791, is put under the head of attorney’s fees, in extraordinary cases.' The witness is supposed to be paid by the attorney, and hence he is allowed for.it in the fee bill. In the note to Miller’s Comp, at page 109, “ the travelling and ferriage” of a witness who resides out of the district is supposed to be allowed to the party as a reimbursement for actual expenses.
If however the allowance' to a witness living out of the district for his travelling was more uncertain, it has been judicially recognized and allowed more than twenty years ago'in Cox, Maitland & Co. vs. The Charleston F. & M. Insurance Company, 3 Rich. 331, and it is now too late to question its correctness. In that case it was said, on examining the clerk’s taxation of the costs, which was submitted with the motion for a new trial: “ The charge for the travelling of a witness, who lives out of the district where the cause is tried, and for the
In the G. & C. R. R. Company vs. Choice, 7 Rich. 40, it will be seen that Mr. Grantt was allowed mileage from Charleston, as a witness there residing.
The- motion to reverse the order of the circuit Judge is granted.
Motion granted,
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.