
    The Commonwealth against Wood and others.
    
      Philadelphia,
    
    
      Monday, April 1.
    Costs of double' the number of witnesses sworn, allowed under special circumstances, provided the counsel in the cause could name so many whom their opinion tvere material.
    THIS was an indictment against Wood and six other journeymen hatters, for a conspiracy. Fifty-nine witnesses were summoned on behalf of the prosecution, only thirteen of whom were called to the book; and the defendants having been convicted, the costs of the forty-six witnesses who were not called were taxed at 240 dollars, and the entire costs at 308 dollars 9 cents. From this taxation the defendants appealed.
    
      Sergeant for the defendants,
    said it was a case of gross oppression, the summoning of witnesses having been left by the attorney-general to a certain Peter Charbonnier the prosecutor, who had been instigated by resentment to make the case as severe as possible upon the defendants, and had summoned. several persons who probably knew nothing of the cause. Nine witnesses alone had been bound over by the mayor. No inquiry was made by any one into the propriety of summoning such a mass of witnesses.,
    
      Charbonnier being sworn,
    said that he was told by Mr. Franklin the attorney-general, to summon such witnesses as he thought necessary. He had therefore made out the list,in which were about forty master hatters. He expected they would prove something. Many of them would not tell him what they could prove, and he had no way to ascertain their knowledge, but by bringing them to court.
    
      Milnor and Candy for the prosecution,
    said that the case was in some respects peculiar. It was an indictment of seven defendants for a conspiracy, which required proof from a variety of persons as to their acts with each other, and with third persons. The conspiracy was an extensive one, and it became necessary to pursue it steadily and through all its windings. It happened that the first thirteen witnesses proved the case sufficiently, and therefore the rest were not called. But there was no evidence of oppression. The mere circumstance of there being many witnesses who were not called, is nothing. De Benneville v. De Benneville. 
      
       It was impossible to say how many would be wanted.
    
      
       1 Binn. 46.
    
   Per Curiam.

The number of witnesses summoned seems extravagant. We would not encourage the practice of the public prosecutor’s permitting the man who institutes the prosecution, to summon as many as he pleases. This case is in some respects of a singular nature. There were seven defendants, and they were connected with others not defendants. The court will therefore allow the costs of twenty-six, witnesses, double the number sworn, provided the counsel can name so many, who in their opinion were material.  