Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1323, 30 June 1883, Page 3

In the case of Common, Shelton, & Co. v, Mnldoon in the R. M. Court yesterday, the vexed question of witness’ expenses was again discussed. In this particular case Mr Nolan claimed expenses for several witnesses who had been subpoenaed, but had not been called ; and in one case he claimed 10s expenses for a clerk in the employ of plaintiff who had attended the Court for a short period to give evidence in favor of his employer. Mr Finn strongly resented these claims, stating that it was very serious matter and likely to impede the course of justice, and that if he had to acceed to these demands he should take it as a precedent in any case which might arise in the future. We cannot help thinking with Mr Finn that the costs in this case were most excessive, and we cannot agree with our worthy R.M. that the defendant should have settled the case out of Court. best argument against this course is that the defendant was in the face of very doubtful evidence, allowed a considerable sum as a set-off. This thin slice of that most expensive of all luxuries the law, cost the unfortunte defendant £lO. Why a witness should be allowed a day’s pay for one or two hour’s attendance iu a Court, especially—especially when that day’s pay amounts tc one guinea. The allowing such excessive expenses can only result in excluding a poor man from obtaining any redress against the unlawful demands of a richer or more influential opponent. As Mr Finn truly remarked, if a man have animus against a debtor, all he has to do is to subpeena a host of witnesses so as to cast him in heavy and ruinous OOS tf.