PAYMENT AND OBLIGATION OF WITNESSES.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 170, 10 April 1869, Page 4

PAYMENT AND OBLIGATION OF WITNESSES.

To the Editor of the Marlborough Express, Sib, —As men belonging to the working class—who have an intelligent enough idea of their rights and yet do not know the exact letter of the law relative to witnesses—may sometimes be placed in a false position in a Court of Justice, the following information may be useful: — A witness who has not received a summons or subpsena can get no allowance for loss of time. Every witness who is summoned and appears at Court is entitled to an allowance for loss of time for each day required to be away from home ; professional men, esquires, and merchants, not exceeding 21s. per day ; tradesmen, mechanics, laborers, &c., not exceeding 10s. per day; and if living more than one mile from the

Court-house, to an allowance of la. per mile one way as travelling expenses. The travelling expenses (of la. per mile) must be offered to desired witnesses at the time of service of summons, or the witness need not appear at all. There is no penalty for nonattendance in such a case. The answer to the query of a person who may have travelled 60 miles to Court —“ I want to know who is to pay my travelling expenses?”—should be, “You need not have left home without being paid them (£3) in advance ; unfortunately, as you have come into Court you must give your evidence now, as a clause of the Act compels any one who may be in Court to be sworn and give evidence under penalties. You will be able to claim your expenses bye and bye off the party who may be adjudged to pay them.” A magistrate must not imprison any one for refusing to be sworn or give his evidence. He may first fine such a person a sum not exceeding £lO, and only in the second place, in default of payment can he imprison for a term not exceeding 14 days. A magistrate must not fine any recusant person without first affording him an opportunity to show cause why he should not be so fined, and he should have failed to satisfy the Court in that behalf. Under the last regulation a delicate legal question might be raised —Whether an individual who had not been paid his travelling expenses has not shown cause why he should not be fined ? —but the result of testing this question would be too uncertain to risk anything upon it. Yours, &c., C.