Pell v Daubeny
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 1850 |
| Date | 06 December 1850 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 416
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 20 L J Ex 44
[955] pell i- dauueny Dec 6, 1850 -A witness who, in obedience to a subpoena, attends a trial in a civil action, may, without any express contract, maintain an action foi his expenses against the party who subpu'iiaed him, the fact of his attendance being evidence from which the jury may inter a contract [S C 20 L J E\ 44 ] Debt for work and labour, journeys, and attendances by the plaintiff as a witness, and for money paid Plea, never indebted Issue thereon At the trial, before Platt B , at the Northamptonshrre Sunimei As-sizes, it appealed that the actiou was brought to reco\er the sum of 461 14s, for the attendance, journeys, and expenses incurred by the plaintiff in attending the trial of a cause at Wegtmrrrster, under a subprwia threes tecum on behalf of the piesent defendant, the thet plaintiff in a case of Davheny v Philips The claim of the piesent plaintiff was foi 21 2s per diern during his attendance at the trial, 11 Is for hi expenses, and Is 3d per mile for his travelling expenses He had received 51 at the time of the subpoena being seized upon him, and did not at that tirne make any further demand Th3 defendant's case was, that the plaintiff had not given his attendance in the character of a witness during the whole of the time in tespect of which he claimed to recover, but no objection was taken to the plaintiff's case, on the ground that a witness who is subpoenaed is not entitled to a remuneration for his expenses The learner! Judge duected the jury, that if the plaintiff came to town as a witness, he wopld be entitled to receive his expenses, and he left it to them to decide whether theplaintiff had attended in town for as long a period as he claimed to be paid for Th jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 191 19s rri respect of his expenses, excluding any compensation for loss of time Whitehurst having obtained a rule nisi for a new tiral, on the giourid of misdirection, and also of the verdu t being against the evidence, Macaulay, Mellor, and Field shewed cause In the first [956] place, the defendant cannot at this peiiocl avail himself of the proposed objection to the ruling of the learned Judge, for no point was made at the trial on his behalf, that an implied contract did not exist between the plaintiff and the defendant, that the for mer was to have his expenses reimbursed , the only question raised was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Luis v. Marchiori, 2018 BCCA 317
...a per diem for their attendance: Collins v. Godefroy (1831), 109 E.R. 1040, 1 B. & A.D. 951 (K.B.), at 956‒57; Pell v. Daubeny (1850), 155 E.R. 416, 5 Ex. 954 (Exch.), at 958‒59; The Ibis VI (1921), 90 L.J.P. 289 (C.A.), at [38] In the mid-nineteenth century the United Kingdom enacted t......
- Westpac Banking Corporation v Asc