Moulton v. Townsend
New York Supreme Court
The plaintiff had a verdict at the Oneida circuit in November, 1856, and upon the taxation of his costs, the following facts appeared. The circuit was appointed to be held on the 20th of October, 1856, on which day, the presiding judge, without ti’ying any causes, adjourned the circuit till the 10th of November, 1856. Public notice of the adjournment had been previously given.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff had a verdict at the Oneida circuit in November, 1856, and upon the taxation of his costs, the following facts appeared. The circuit was appointed to be held on the 20th of October, 1856, on which day, the presiding judge, without ti’ying any causes, adjourned the circuit till the 10th of November, 1856. Public notice of the adjournment had been previously given. This cause was noticed by the plaintiff, and put upon the calendar for the circuit in October, and before he learned that the circuit was to be adjourned, the plaintiffs had requested one Pease and his wife, to come to…
1Opinion of the CourtBacon, Justice
Ordered a retaxation with the following directions to the clerk:
1st. The clerk’s decision respecting the witnesses Pease and wife, was affirmed, except that he was directed to allow to them for one day’s constructive attendance on the 20th of October, and a per diem allowance for the whole period between the 10th and the 24th of November, deducting the days when the court was not actually in session. -
2d. To allow to each of the witnesses Eobbins and Carrier, his travelling fees for going from Floyd to Eome, and returning three times, and their per diem allowance as the clerk had taxed it.
2Cited by3 opinions
- O'Rourke v. Degnon Realty & Terminal Improvement Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- Inderlied v. WhaleyNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Tritchler v. SmithNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1928