Case ID: scl_15/html/0158-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Johnson.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

M’Clure vs. Sutherland.
    Where a verdict has been found in favor of one of several joint defendants, he is entitled to have his costs. But where the costs have been joint, as a joint appearance, plea, subpoena, &c. he is only entitled to half costs.
    -But if a particular expense has been incurred, as if a witness has been examined by commission for him alone, the defendant acquitted will be allowed full costs for such items.
    This was a suit brought against Sutherland and one Lynch.- On the trial a verdict was found against Lynch, but in favor of Sutherland. The appearances, pleas, and subpoenas were joint, one attorney acting for both. The question was whether Sutherland was entitled to have his costs. The clerk refused to tax any costs for him, and this was a rule on him to shew cause.
    Huger, J. who heard the cause, made the rule absolute, with directions to the clerk to allow only half costs. Sutherland appealed.
    
      Bowie and Burt, for tile appeal.
    Costs in this state are not divisable. They must be allowed or refused in toto. By the authority of Trapp vs. M’Kenzie, 2 Nott %nd M’Cord 571, Sutherland was entitled to have judgment for all his costs in the cause.
   Curia, per

Johnson.

The County Court Act contains a provision, that if a verdict shall be found for one of sev-‘feral defendants, be shall have costs against the plaintiff. And although this act was not imperative on the Circuit Courts, the principle of it seems to have been incorpora* ted in the practice in those courts, and is sanctioned in the case of Trapp vs. M’Kenzie. Where the costs must from their nature be joint, such for instance as the cost of a joint appearance or plea, or when witnesses have been summoned on account of the joint defence, the rule laid down by the presiding judge for their apportionment, furnishes the only practical mode, and is clearly coi’reet.— But if it can be shown to the satisfaction of the clerk, that a particular expense has been incurred by the individual defence of the successful defendant; as for example when witnesses have been summoned or examined by commission, on account of his defence alone, and unconnected with the joint defence, it comports with the jus-Ie of the case and the spirit of the pi-actice, that he juld be allowed this as a separate charge. The motion therefore granted, and the clerk is directed to tax the costs in conformity with this opinion.

Costs ordered tobe taxed.