Case ID: binn_1/html/0535-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Tilgi-iman C. J. Yeates J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sherer against Hodgson. Lessee of Hodgson against Sherer.
    Saturday, April 1st.
    Jurors not drawn by lot for the court, but drawn UPOn a former and ued over, are not to PaY from the county, but from the losing party. The expense of a view is not charge~ able to the county; it must be paid by thelosing party in the cause
    THESE causes were tried at a circuit court for c'he~ter in rune 1808, when the plaintiff in each action obtained a verdict The juries who tried them, were not chosen for the court at which the trials took place; but were summoned to a previous court, when they held a view, and to save the cxpense another view, were continued over by consent. A full panel of jurors notwithstanding was selected and returned for the other issues of the rune circuit. It
    was agreed by counsel to propose the question of costs to~ this court; and accordingly frazer for Sherer, and for Hodgson, now submitted the following questions, without argument. 1. Whether jurors not
    1. Whether jurors notdrawn by lot for the present court, but drawn and struck on a former occasion, and continued over, are entitled to be paid by the eounty; if not, whether by any one, and whom. any one and whom.
    
      2. Whether the expense of a view is to be paid by the county, ' or by the parties; and if by the parties, whether by both, or by the party failing, or the party demanding the view.
   Tilgi-iman C. J.

The juries who tried these causes were not drawn by lot, and summoned to the court at which they7 were tried; but having been drawn and struck sometime before, they were continued over by consent, and at the request of the parties, for their own convenience; because it saved the expense of a new view.

Two questions are submitted to the court, with respect to costs. 1. Whether the jurors who thus attended are to be paid by the county; and, if not, then by whom they are to be paid. 2. Whether the expense of the view is to be paid by the county or the parties; and if by the parties, whether by both, or by the one against whom the verdict was given; or by the party demanding the view.

1. I think there is no pretence for charging the county with the costs of these juries; because they were not summoned for the benefit of the suitors in general, but for the particular convenience of these parties. The usual number of jurymen, exclusive of these, were summoned for the general business of the court, and paid by the county. '

2. I am of opinion that the expense of the view is not to be paid by the county; because it is unreasonable, and there is no law which authorizes it. It is to be paid by the parties; and like other costs, it must fall ultimately on the losing party.

Yeates J.

It appears to me, that only the jurors drawn by-lot, as the law directs, are entitled to be paid for their attendance by the county. Otherwise the consequence would be, that individuals might burthen the county with costs, which were never contemplated by the legislature. It follows of course that the attendance of the jurors, not drawn by lot, both on the view and at the trial, must be paid for by the losing parties respectively, according to the events of the two causes.

Br.ackenb.idge J. was engaged at a nisi prius during the argument, and gave no opinion.