The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-12-10 00:00:00

COUNTY CO URT.—YESTERDAY.
The court sat at ten o'clock.

WILKINSON V. GATES. —WITNESSES' EXPENSES.—The
plaintiff in this case sought to recover 7s. 6d. a day for six
days, during which he attended upon a subpoena in St.
George's Hall, in a case of Batts v. Gates, recently tried.
Mr. RYMER appeared for the defence, and said he should
have made no objection to the demand, but that the plaintiff
had got in his possession some property belonging to the de-
fendant. He should therefore oppose the claim, on the
ground that the plaintiff being resident in Liverpool, was
not entitled by law to recover his expenses under a
subpoena.
His HONOR : He cannot recover his expenses ?
Mr. RYMER : Not when residing within the town.
His Herron : Just show me that.
Mr. RYMER : A witness residing in town can have no
expenses.
His HoNon • That is what I want to know.

Mr. RYMER : All the authorities go to that extent.
His HONOR : But why ? Suppose a man is kept out of
his house, and gets his dinner in town.
Mr. RYMER : Even so, he is not entitled to recover any
expenses.
His HONOR : Yes, he is entitled to recover expenses, but
not for loss of time. lam quite clear in my own mind about
it. The law is this, whether living in or out of the town a
man is entitled, wherever he is, to any expense resulting
from his attendance as a witness, but nothing for loss of
time. The law imposes upon him the duty of attending in
accordance with the subpoena, and accordingly he is not to
be raid for loss of time, but he is to be paid for any expense
he incurs in his absence from home—such as the exp ense of
going and coming back. Of course if he lives close by; there
is no expense—and if he is obliged to expend any money
because of his being away from home, that expense is
allowed. You will find there is a case where a man got his
expenses for nine weeks.
Mr. RYMER : Yes, I am quite aware of that case ; but I
think he recovered for being detained.
His
,HONOR : He received the expenses for attending,
being made to come there and kept there. #i know of no
case where a man is not to be paid his expenses. Are you
prepared to contend that if he is served with a subpoena,
without any sum of money whatever, he is bound to attend
Mr. ItymEh : Yes, sir, certainly. There can be no doubt
about it. It is a duty incumbent upon any man to attend
upon a subpoena; and what I say is this, if a man is close by,
living in the town itself, he has no expenses whatevea
His HONOR : He may have.
Mr. RYMER : What expenses can he possibly have ?
His HONOR : He may require to eat.
Mr. RYMER : He can eat at home.

PLAINTIFF : I could not go home.
His HONOR; He might not be able to go home. You
only speak of expenses for loss of time. Now, for loss of
time, he is not entitled to recover a single penny.
Mr. RYMER : In all the cases I have read, the parties
must have had the very same expenses as this man, and yet
they were disallowed.
His HONOR: It has been expressly decided that loss of
time differs from expenses. lam by no means prepared to
say, that if you bring a man from the farther end of Tox-
teth-park down to St. George's Hall, you are not to allow
him meat and drink while he is detained in town. You
will not allow him to go such a distance back to his home to
get them.
Mr. RYMER cited a case in which a party residing in
Spital-square, city, was obliged to attend the courts in West-
minster, and was disallowed any expenses of any kind.
In answer to his HONOR, the plaintiff stated that he lived
in Simpson-street, St. James's-street, and that he remained
in court during the whole of the six days, without being able
to go home. He also stated that he had to pay a person for
doing his work in his absence.
His HONOR That you cannot recover. My view of the
law is quite clear that a man is entitled to his expenses, but
nothing for loss of time. lam of opinion that a man can-
not refuse attendance even if offered no expenses; but after
he has attended I do not know that there is any case to say
that he is not entitled to look for any expenses, which he
may have incurred.
Mr. Exam:. said the case which he had cited seemed to
come the nearest to the question.
His HoNou. : I will look over the case you speak of between
this and Monday, and if it goes as far as von contend, then
this man will be entitled to nothing. fiis Honor, in the
meantime gave a verdict for £l.
CAUPIN v. Smrra.—A foreign gentleman, wearing a black
moustache, and bearing the name of Julien Caupin, sought
to recover ls. from Mr. J. H. Smith, of Lord-street,
clothier, which amount he stated the defendant agreed to
give him for teaching his son a new and valuable system of
cutting.
Mr SMITH stated that the plaintiff, who was a perfect
stranger to him, came into his shop and told him he possessed
a valuable system of cutting which he would teach him.
After some objection and refusal, defendant agreed to give
him a guinea provided he fulfilled the undertaking which
hP offered to teach defendant's son, a youth of seventeen, in
one lesson, to cut ouL, a pair of trnwserS for any man in
Liverpool. He said he would make it so clear that the boy
should be a perfect master of the system in five minutes.
The plaintiff then cut out a paper pattern which Mr. Smith
stated the most experienced cutter could not understand,
much less a boy of seventeen. Mr. Smith here produced
the pattern, which he held up for the inspection of the court.
His HoNou : Well, is your son perfect in the system ?
DEFENDANT: He is not perfect, and he cannot cut a pair of
trowzers for any man in Liverpool, which was the agree-
ment.

His HONOR; Are you willing to pay the man's expenses
in coming here for the benefit you have received from the
lesson ?

DEFENDANT : No, sir, not a farthing. There was no value
in it. I look upon him as an imposter wandering about
from shop to shop, and it was for that reason I came here.
His Herron said the only doubt he had was as to the
nature of the agreement, whether it was merely to give a
lesson in a particular system for a guinea, as to accomplish
a certain result, as was stated by the defendant. As such
a doubt existed, the plaintiff had failed to make out his case,
and he should therefore give a ,verdict for the defendant.