Medical Jurisprudence, Volume 3 (of 3)Paris, John Ayrton
Science
Medical Jurisprudence, Volume 3 (of 3)
Paris, John Ayrton
Medical laws and legislation -- Great Britain
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, that in certain cases allowances were made for
loss of time, and the question here was, how far the present case came
within the rules of those allowances. As a general principle, allowances
to witnesses for loss of time could not be maintained. No doubt it was a
great inconvenience, that individuals whose business required their
whole time should be obliged to devote part of that time to the concerns
of others without reward; but it was an inconvenience to which all were
equally subject in turn; and as it was to answer the ends of public
justice, it ought to be borne. As to allowance for loss of time, he
considered the thing decided by the case of _Willis_ v. _Peckkan_ (4th
_Moore_). An action had been brought in that case to recover 3_l._ for
loss of time whilst giving evidence in a case. It was contended for the
defendants that no such action could be maintained, except by medical
men and attornies. The court was of the same opinion; but the jury,
nevertheless, found a verdict for the plaintiff. In the following term a
motion was made to have the verdict set aside and a nonsuit entered. The
court, after hearing the arguments on both sides, decided that a nonsuit
must be entered; and further held, that only medical men and attornies
could charge for loss of time, as witnesses. The matter was settled,
before, in the Court of King’s Bench, in the case of “_Moore_ v.
_Adam_.” The court were therefore of opinion, that as far as this
allowance for loss of time, the taxation should be reviewed.
Mr. Sergeant _Lens_ then proceeded to other parts of the rule, and
contended that the apportioning of the costs between the Phœnix and
Imperial Insurance was the fairest mode which could be adopted, as each
had two actions, though they were not all tried, and the evidence in
each was the same.
The _Chief Justice_ asked how much the expense of the experiments made
amounted to.
The Prothonotary said that all the items were so mixed up, that it would
be impossible to ascertain at that moment.
The _Chief Justice_—It is important that the charge for experiments
should be known. The opinion of men of science is received as evidence,
because it arises from pre-existing science; but surely, as in the
present case, they ought not to acquire their knowledge at the expense
of the parties against whom their evidence is to weigh.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account