THE MICHIGAN.
509
THE MICHIGAN. PRINGLE
et al, v.
(Circuit Court, E. D. Michigan. June 14, 1892.) WITNESSES-PER DIEM FEES.
Witnesses attending federal courts are not entitled to the per diem fee of $1.110, in addition to their mileage, for time spent in coming to and retnrning from the place of trial, or for time occupied previous to the day of trial in conference with counselor proctor.
In Admiralty. On motion to correct taxation of costs. on the merits, see 52 Fed. Rep. 501. H. C. Wisner, for libelants. R. T. Gray and F. H. Canfield, for respondents.
For opinion
JACKSON, Circuit Judge. This cause is now before the court on motion or appeal to correct the taxation of costs made herein against respondent. The question presented relates to the proper taxation of witness fees in favor of libelants, and arises upon the following stipulated facts, viz.: "(1 case occupieq two days in its trial. (2) That all of the time taxed by thelibelants for tbeir witness fees, over and above the two days occupied in,tbe trial of the case, was the time used by such witD'.lsses in traveling to and from the trial of the cause, excepting that some of the witnesses, at the request of libelants' proctor. arrived one day before the trial of the cause, for purpose Of" conf,errin"g with libelants'.'vroctor ,in regal'dto the case. (a) That all of said witnesses, excepting Thomas L. Pringle, were actually paid the amounts stated in the bill of costs. (4) That the affidavit attached to the bill of costs, in which it is stated that the witnesses attended thenumbetofdays therein stated, refers to the time used by the said witnesses. as above stated, and not that they Were in the court for that number of days."
It i.$ conceded that the taxation of costs is correct, if libelants' witare entitled to fees while coming to and returning from the trial, but that, if their fees are to be determined by the time they were in attendance upon the court or trial, then the taxation in libelants' favor is too much, by the sum of $25. The statute provides that the witnesses shall receive for each day's attendance in court, pursuant to law, $1.50, and 5 cents a mile for corning from his place of residence to the place of trial or hearing, and five cents a mile [or returning. We think it clear, from the language of the statute and from the provisions for mileage, that witness fees cannot be properly taxed for the time or number of days occupied in coming to the place of trial and in returning. The mileage allowed is intended to cover that time. n is. ,equally that the time occupied by a witness in conference with counselor proctor before the day fixed .for trial or his attend. ance cannot be taxed as a "day's attendance in court." Witnesses, un·
der the statute, are not entitled to ape:r diem for the time occupied in traveling to and from the place:of i ,trial/ The excess of the pe:r diem taxed, amounting to the sum of $25, will accordingly be corrected. No direct adjudication {)l1i this question having heretofore been made in this circuit, it may be proper to state that the conclusion above reached is concurred in by Cireuit"J"ustice 'B1tOwN and Associata Circuit Judge TAFT, and is intended to prescribe the rule for the proper taxation of witJaeBB1fees in such cases.
THE J AM]JsBOWEN. THE GEO. E. WEED. TITUS:'!.
MURPHY v. THE GEo.'E. WEED. I ".,j' , . ' .' (mstrlct Oourt, E. D. Pennsylvania. september" 97, 1899.) 1. COLIJIIOW..,-'Otrll'l\(). OJ' POJ;l!r. :'
custom,ot the port of Philade1J)hia$hat on the Delaware river, island, Walnu.t stree't wharfl at ebb tide, vessels lIassing np shall keep and' ve.Sell paslimgdown'shall Keep in regulations prescribeaby theaaillilg rules prescribed by the aot of A vesse18isnaling , ,,' '.
The
.
" .. : ' ,
lklBAME.;..NBGIlIdIIIWB-SIGNJUl.
is going westwlU'd of a, vessel meeting her head on, whioh isall,swered by t4e with a signal that she will .go to the eastward, is not negUgent,,'althougb her proper couree originally was to the eastward.
3. SAME.' '. A vesslllllleetingtwo vessels which &resl1bstantially together, and which must
necessarilY both .pass tothel\ame sideot her. may announce her intended couree to both by 0I/e
. In Admira1$y. Libel byW. H.Titus, master 'of tug Gao. E. Weed, against'· the steamer James Bowen, to recover damages for colli· !lion, and cross libel by AUgustus Murphy, master of the tug James Bowen, against the tugGeo. E. Weed. Decree against the Bowen. . LewiJJ & TiltO'lt' for thb E. . Biddle & Ward and RochRJort & Stanton, for the James Bowen.
Goo.
The suit is for collisioll., The material afternoon,of .september 20, 1891, the Weed, a was. up the, western side afthe Delaware river over) to Walqut wharf ill ,coml?any with another tug, the Ben Hooley. .The latter wan few yards behmd, probably a lengtll. andslightlj'riearer the shore. The}ide,was ebb. When passing Greenwich pietsthe,Bowen wasseencotiling ddwn, about three . ; .', \ , ' ,. ,.,. ';
facts are as follows: .
, BUTLER"DfStrict
lReported by Mark Wilks CoUet,'Esq., of tllePhiladelphia