Young v. . Commissioners of Buncombe

76 N.C. 316
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 5, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 N.C. 316 (Young v. . Commissioners of Buncombe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Young v. . Commissioners of Buncombe, 76 N.C. 316 (N.C. 1877).

Opinion

Read®, J.

1. The pay of jurors is whatever the County Commissioners shall allow not exceeding one dollar and fifty cents per day. Rat. Rev. ch. 105 § 23.

The presiding Judge has no power to increase that allowance in any given case. And we suppose that when -IJis Honor directed the Sheriff to furnish the jury with “board and lodging” during the trial he only meant -what is usual*» to allow the jury to have refreshments during the trial to'be procured of course at their own expense. And as the jurors could not separate to procure refreshments the offieer-was directed to wait upon them. Brandon v. Com’rs of Caswell, 71 N. C. 62.

2.\ The witness ticket which the plaintiff obtained from the Clerk for his attendance as a witness was merely evidence that he had attended as a witness, but it furnished no' evidence as to how he was to be paid. That was to be pass- • ed upon and had not been passed upon by the Judge. Until that is done the Commissioners of Runcombe are not-liable.

No error.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed-

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

Related

Stowell v. Board of Supervisors
23 N.W. 557 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 N.C. 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-commissioners-of-buncombe-nc-1877.