The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-11-13 00:00:00

EXPENSES OP WITNESSES.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. MONDAY, Nor. 12.

SEVIMN V. 9UVC.

Mr. Serjeant Less appeared to show cause against
a rule obtained in this case. The case arose out of
the well-known one of Messrs. Severn, King and Co.
sugar-refiners. against some of the Insurance Compa-
nies, for losses sustained in the destruction of their
extensive premises near Whitechapel. It will be re-
collected, that in the two trials which arose out of that
event, a great number of scientific men were examined
oa both sides as to the result of experiments made by
them in the process of boiling sugar by means of
bested oil. The verdict in both cues, as is known,
was for the plaintiffs. In the bill of costs sent in to
the defendants, charge was made for the at►endance of;
the learned cliymists, who gave evidence for the,
plaintiffs, and also for their lass of time and trouble'
in making those experiateats. Other charges were,
made for the expense of the experiments themselves.
The prothonotary who taxed the costa allowed both
the charges in principle, though not to the extent set
down in the bill. It was in consequence of having
made those allowances that a rule bad been granted
to show cause why he should not renew his taxation
of. coats.

The costs of experiniinsts Rad witoesses appeared to
be 2;2441.. of which sear 700/. woo dedected.

Mr. Serjeant Lars, in showing cause against the
rule, contended that the allowance for loss of time to
Dr. Thompson was a very natural and just one. Dr.
Thompson was Professor of Chywistry in the Univer-
sity of Glasgow, and had been obliged to come up to
London three times, at considerable inconvenience and
expense, to give evidence in the case. He had been
at great trouble in making and superintending expe-
riments, and the prothonotary, in taxing the costs,
had allowed a reasonable sum for the whole. It was
the same in the cases of the other scientific gentlemen
who attended.

The Prothonotary here observed, that be considered
the allowance for expenses and loss 9f time to Dr.
Thompson and other gentlemen as very just. It was
usual to allow for loss of time in such eases.
The Cuter JUSTICE here observed, that in certain
cases allowances were made for loss of time, and Al
question here was, bow far the present case came with-
in the rule of those allowances. As a general prin-
ciple, allowances to witnesses for lost of time could
not be maintained. No doubt it was a great inconve-
nience, that individuals whose business required their
whole time should be obliged to devote part of thst

time to the concerns of ethers without reward ; but it
was an inconvenience to which all were equally subject
in turn ; as it was to answer the ends of public
justice, it ought to be borne. As to the allow .nee for
loss of time, he considered the thing decided by the
case of Willis r. Peckhan (4th Moore). An action had
been brought in that case to recover 3/. for the loss of
time whilst giving evidence in a case. It was con-
tended for the defendants that no such action coal.' lyt
maintainea, except by medical men and attorneys.—
The Court was of the same opinion ; but the jury,
neverthele-o, found a verdict for the plaintiff. lu tie
following term a motion was made to have the verdict
set aside and a nonsuit entered. Tbe Court, after
hearing the arguments on both sides, decided that a
nonsuit must be entered ; and further held, that only
medic 41 men and attorneys could charge for loss of time,
as witnesses. The matter was settled, before, in the
Court of King's Bench, in the case of " Moore v.
Ailatu." The Court were therefore of opinion, teat
as far as his allowance fur loss of time, the taxation
should he reviewed.
Mr. Serjeant LENS thee proceeded to other parts of
the rule, and contended that the apportioning of the
costs between the Piicenix and I iiiperial I flat, ranee was
the fairest mode which could he adopted, as each hail
two actions, thon; h they were nut all tried, and the
evidence in each was the same.
TbiKeter Jounce asked *how much the expense
of the experiments made amemited to.
The Pritlion r said that all the items were so
mixed up. th.t would be impossible to ascertain at
r
that moment.
The Cuter Jorice.—lt is important that the
charge for experiments should be known. The opinion
of men of science is received as evidence, because it
arises from pre-existing science; but surely, as in the
present case, they ought not to acquire their know-
ledge at the expense of the parties against whom their
evidence is to weigh.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN, on the same site with Ser.
jeant Lens, submitted that it could never have been
intended that men should not be allowed some recom-
pense for loss of time. It would be not only an injus-
tice. but a cruelty in many cases, if such a principle
were to be adopted. Indeed, the principle was con-
stantly departed from, in cases where the time of indi-
viduals had been a good deal engaged. In the case of
" Lopes v. De Tastet," the evidence of a Spanish cap-
tain of a ship was taken, and it caused him to delay a
considerable time in town, and in the taxing of du;
costs a round sum was very properly allowed by the
prothonotary, w‘ich, no doubt, was meant not merely
to cover his expenses in town, but to compensate him
fur the loss of liis time.
The Cutter JUSTICE.—We hal a consultation, not
long since, in a well-known case, and in another place.
whether the profits of a voyage should not be allowed
for, and as to whether a certain sum given lb i cap-
tain of a ship should be looked upon as co upensatiun
for loss of time, or in the light of a bribe.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN said he knew the case to
which his Lordship alluded. lie went On Li say, that
the prothonotary had not made any specific allowance
for loss of time as such, bat had mentioned one sum
for trouble, expense, and loss of time. As Is the cost
of the experiments which had been made, he submitted
that in a case where the subject was quite new, and as
they were not made wantonly or with a view to put a
part to unnecessary expense, the cost of them ought
to be allowed. They were made bonnie lee this
case ; the materials and apparatus were also provided
with reference to the present ease alone Under such
circumstances, he submitted that they ought to be al-
lowed ; and be ought to add, that their alfidavits set
forth, that the experiments were ma le in consequence
'of its being known that similar experiments were
made on the o:lier side.
Mr. Serjeant 'FADDY followed on the ISMS side, and
observed, that is bile be admitted the general principle
that expenses were nut allowed for loss of time, except
io physicians and attornies, he could sue see why scien-
tific men, such as cbymists, should not be brawls' un-
der the same rule as physicians.
The Cuter JUSTICE.—For this reason, that to a
physician loss of time is considered as loos of profit.
A physician cannot visit a patient by deploy, as the
patient might not have the same confidence in that
p. non as in the physician, and this I take to be the
reason why the loss of time is allowed. For reason
similar in principle the loss is also compensated as to
the attorney.
Mr. Justice Pans—Suppose a clergyman, living in
Cumberland, were summoned to give evideoce in a
cause in Londoo, and that being delayed here for two
or three weeks, he was obliged to employ a curate to
olficiat, is his absence, have you any case where that
expense would be allowed ?
The Prothonotary—lavariably the imposes mold
be allowed, may Lord.
Mr. Justice Panit—l am glad to Wow it, tail was
nut aware bow the case was..

• ;
k

4

7711--74,'

;5711101--,0