Case Name: Fuller against Mattice
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1817-10
Citations: 14 Johns. 357
Docket Number: 
Parties: Fuller against Mattice.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 359–360

Head Matter:
Fuller against Mattice.
NEW YORK,
October, 1817.
No al fees caut e eWmed t>y «H-. aesses, of the FnaJtythemptefet m!íra'KS aL?t of record" cified“á°theTó blA witness in a ^justice's foreign county! only entitles d°y5andhe a" not maintain as action for addi~ sa°"a¿ “gains' {¡ÍLSbsLS1’5'
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a iustice’s court.
The defendant m error brought an action against plain- ° ° t l tiff in error, the defendant in the court below, for his services as a witness in a foreign county ; and it appeared, at the trial, that the plaintiff below was subpoenaed, from the county of Schoharie, to attend a trial at a justice’s court, in the county of Greene; that he was absent three days, and had received 75 cents. justice gave judgment for the plaintiff, for three dollars and 75 cents, allowing him one dollar and 25 cents per davl for his , , ... . . 1 . J reasonable expenses, in going to, remaining at, and returning from the place of trial. ‘ r

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The only question in this case .is, whether a witness, who is subpoenaed to attend a trial, in a justice's court, is entitled to recover from the party subpoenaing him, any thing for his expenses beyond the 25 cents, allowed by the The act (I JY. R. L. 339.) declares, that no greater or other costs shall be allowed or taken in actions brought by virtue of that act, than is therein mentioned ; and, among other things, foreign witnesses attending and sworn, are allowed 25 cents per day. The act, relative to the fees of witnesses, attending in •courts of record, within this state, is a little more explicit, and declares that the witness shall be entitled to receive, as a compensation for his attendance and expenses, the daily allowance specified in the fee bill, (1 R. L. 5~24.) The construction which has always been given to the last.~nentioned act is, that nothing beyond such allowance could be claimed; and we think, that the same construction must be given to the provision for witnesses in the act in question. The judgment must, accordingly, be reversed.
Judgment reversed.