Healy v. Hillsboro County
| Decision Date | 15 March 1901 |
| Citation | 49 A. 89,70 N.H. 688 |
| Parties | HEALY v. HILLSBORO COUNTY. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Hillsboro county.
Action by Michael J. Healy against the county of Hillsboro for witness fees and for services rendered as a police officer. From a judgment allowing a certain portion of the fees claimed, plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
The plaintiff, who is a police officer, testified before the grand jury in several cases on the same day. In some instances more than one indictment were found on the same evidence. He was also a witness in the police court in some of these cases. The plaintiff claims (1) his actual travel and one day's attendance on one indictment; (2) one mile's travel and one day's attendance on each of the other indictments; (3) fees as an officer for attending court, and as a witness in the cases in which he testified in the police court He also asked to be allowed pay for his services in preparing cases for trial before the grand and petit juries. The court allowed him his actual travel and attendance before the grand jury, and his fees as an officer in the police court cases. He excepted to the disallowance of the balance of his claim.
Michael J. Healy, pro se.
James P. Tuttle, for defendant.
YOUNG, J. Witnesses were compelled to attend court without pay at common law, and the fees given them by statute are not intended as compensation for testifying, but simply to pay their expenses while away from home. Courtney v. Baker, 3 Denio, 27, 32. Section 16, c. 287, of the Public Statutes, which provides for the compensation of officers when their presence is required in the police court, contains nothing to show that they are to be paid more when their presence is required as witnesses than when it is required for other purposes. So it is improbable that the legislature intended to pay officers who were attending court for testifying. A witness who is recognized or summoned must appear before the grand jury and submit to an examination in respect of any matters within his knowledge. This examination may be completed at once, or continued from day to day, to suit the convenience of the grand jury, and the witness must remain in attendance until it is completed. "The fees of witnesses shall be for each day's attendance at the supreme court * * * one dollar and twenty-five cents; * * * for each mile's travel to and from the place of testifying six cents." Pub. St. c. 287, § 13. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Meridian v. Beeman
... ... ARTHUR G. BUSBY, Judge ... APPEAL ... from the circuit court of Lauderdale county HON. ARTHUR G ... BUSBY, Judge ... Action ... by L. W. Beeman against the City of ... Reis, ... 80 Cal. 266, 22 P. 176; Sullivan v. Bridgeport, 81 ... Conn. 660, 71 A. 906; Healy v. Hillsboro County, 70 ... N.H. 588, 49 A. 89; Mangam v. Brooklyn, 98 N.Y. 585, ... 50 Am. Rep ... ...
-
City of Downey v. Gonzales
...Prichard v. Southern Pacific Co., 9 Cal.App.2d 701, 706, 51 P.2d 426; Starmont v. Cummins, 120 Mich. 629, 79 N.W. 897; Healy v. Hillsborough County, 70 N.H. 588, 49 A. 89; 97 C.J.S. Witnesses p. Whether the expert witness manifested himself to the court in twenty-eight, fifteen or thirteen ......
- Rand v. Town of Pittsfield