Marsh v. Branch Bank at Mobile
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mobile. This was a motion for the retaxation of costs, at the instance of the defendant in error. From a bill of exceptions in the record, it appears that the plaintiff was summoned as a witness in two causes lately pending in the Circuit Court of Mobile, at the suit of the appellee, one against Jos. Cain and the other against B. C. Gallop; in each of which the sum of sixty-nine dollars was taxed for the appellant’s attendance as a witness.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mobile. This was a motion for the retaxation of costs, at the instance of the defendant in error. From a bill of exceptions in the record, it appears that the plaintiff was summoned as a witness in two causes lately pending in the Circuit Court of Mobile, at the suit of the appellee, one against Jos. Cain and the other against B. C. Gallop; in each of which the sum of sixty-nine dollars was taxed for the appellant’s attendance as a witness. These causes were on the trial docket both at the spring and fall terms of the court holden in 1845, and were dismissed…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
By the act of 1807, it is enacted that the attendance of a witness as to the number of days shall be ascertained by his oath, to be made at the court at which the cause is determined, &c. or within five days thereafter, before the clerk, who shall grant a certificate for the same ; and if the witness swear falsely, in order to obtain his certificate, he shall be adjudged guilty of perjury. [Clay’s Dig. 600, § 6; 601, § 12.] It is contended that a certificate obtained under this enactment is conclusive as to the number of days the witness has attended under subpoena, and cannot be gainsay-ed,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ogletree v. McQuaggsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Burns v. HowardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Ward v. ChaversSupreme Court of Alabama · 1896
- Friddle v. BraunAlabama Court of Appeals · 1913