
    Hillsborough,
    Dec., 1900.
    Healy v. Hillsborough County.
    A police officer who testifies in a police court is not entitled, to fees as a witness in addition to compensation for attendance.
    A witness who testifies before a grand jury in several cases on the same day is entitled to fees for one day’s attendance and mileage.
    ■One who assists in preparing criminal cases for trial cannot recover compensation from the county, in the absence of evidence that the services were rendered at the request of the proper officers, or that the charges therefor were approved by them.
    Claim, for fees in state cases. The plaintiff, who is a police •officer, testified before the grand jurjr in several cases on the same day. In some instances more than one indictment was found on the same evidence. He was also a witness in the police court in some of these cases. The plaintiff claims (1) his actual travel and one day’s attendance on one indictment, (2) one mile’s travel ■and one day’s attendance on each of the other indictments, (3) fees as an officer for attending court and as a witness in the cases in which he testified in the police court. He also asked to be allowed pay for bis services in preparing cases for trial before tbe grand and petit juries. Tbe court allowed him his actual travel and attendance before tbe grand jury and bis fees as an officer in tbe police court cases. He excepted to tbe disallowance of the balance of bis claim.
    
      Plaintiff, pro se.
    
    
      James P. Tuttle, solicitor, for tbe defendants.
   Young, J.

Witnesses were compelled to attend court without pay at common law, and tbe fees given them by statute are not intended as compensation for testifying, but simply to pay their expenses while away from home. Courtney v. Baker, 3 Denio 27, 32. Section 16, chapter 287, of tbe Public Statutes, which provides for tbe compensation of officers when tlieir presence is required in tbe police court, contains nothing to show that they are to be paid more when their presence is required as witnesses than when it is required for other purposes. So it is improbable that the legislature intended to pay officers who were attending court for testifying.

A witness who is recognized or summoned must appear before the grand jury and submit to an examination in respect of any matters within bis knowledge. This examination may be completed at once, or continued from day to day to suit tbe convenience of the grand jury, and tbe witness must remain in attendance until it is completed. “ Tire fees of witnesses shall be, for each day’s attendance at tbe supreme . . . court, . . . one dollar and twenty-five cents; . . . for each mile’s travel to and from tbe place of testifying, six cents.” P. S., e. 287, s. 13. This section makes tbe witness’ fees depend neither on the number of times be lias recognized or has been summoned, nor on the number of indictments found on bis evidence, but on his travel and attendance. The reason for this is plain. Interest in tbe event of tbe action always tends to discredit tbe witness, and tbe legislature would never intentionally discredit all witnesses who come before tbe grand jury, by making tlieir fees contingent on tbe number of indictments found on tlieir testimony. Bliss v. Brainard, 42 N. H. 255.

It does not appear that tbe plaintiff’s services in preparing cases for trial were rendered at tbe request of tbe defendants, or that tbe charges therefor have been approved by tbe proper officer. P. S., c. 256, s. 9.

Exceptions overruled.

Peaslee, J., did not sit: tbe others concurred.  