Starmont v. Cummins

Michigan Supreme Court

Starmont v. Cummins

79 N.W. 897, 120 Mich. 629, 1899 Mich. LEXIS 1002

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 11, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 79 N.W. 897 (Starmont v. Cummins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Starmont v. Cummins, 79 N.W. 897, 120 Mich. 629, 1899 Mich. LEXIS 1002 (Mich. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The statute under which relator claims his fees reads as follows: “That whenever any person shall attend any court as a witness in behalf of the people of this State, upon request of the public prosecutor, or upon a subpoena, or by virtue of any recognizance for that purpose, he shall be entitled to the following fees,” etc. 2 How. Stat. § 9064. The relator was in court as an officer in charge of a prisoner, and entitled to receive his fees as such officer. The evident purpose of this stat-’ ute is to compensate a witness to some extent for his loss of time. Most men are engaged in some employment, which they must necessarily leave in obedience to the subpoena of the court. Relator was not subpoenaed as a witness; he had not come as a witness; he had lost no time as a witness. Those who are familiar with criminal trials are aware that the officer making the arrest is frequently sworn as a witness. Is he, under those circumstances, entitled to fees both as an officer and as a witness ? No such rule should be adopted, unless the statute clearly provides it. There is nothing in the statute to indicate it. We think the relator is not entitled to both fees. Com. v. Commissioners of Philadelphia Co., 6 Bin. 397; Board of Commissioners of Montgomery Co. v. Bromley, 108 Ind. 158.

Judgment reversed, and judgment entered for the respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The statute under which relator claims his fees reads as follows: “That whenever any person shall attend any court as a witness in behalf of the people of this State, upon request of the public prosecutor, or upon a subpoena, or by virtue of any recognizance for that purpose, he shall be entitled to the following fees,” etc. 2 How. Stat. § 9064. The relator was in court as an officer in charge of a prisoner, and entitled to receive his fees as such officer. The evident purpose of this stat-’ ute is to compensate a witness to some extent for his loss of time. Most men are engaged in some employment, which they must necessarily leave in obedience to the subpoena of the court. Relator was not subpoenaed as a witness; he had not come as a witness; he had lost no time as a witness. Those who are familiar with criminal trials are aware that the officer making the arrest is frequently sworn as a witness. Is he, under those circumstances, entitled to fees both as an officer and as a witness ? No such rule should be adopted, unless the statute clearly provides it. There is nothing in the statute to indicate it. We think the relator is not entitled to both fees. Com. v. Commissioners of Philadelphia Co., 6 Bin. 397; Board of Commissioners of Montgomery Co. v. Bromley, 108 Ind. 158.

Judgment reversed, and judgment entered for the respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 N.W. 897, 120 Mich. 629, 1899 Mich. LEXIS 1002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starmont-v-cummins-mich-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack