
    Hatch vs. Hart.
    Replevin.
    On the trial the plaintiff under objection, was permitted to give evidence of the value of the services of his attorney and counsel in attending to the suit, as a part of the damages he had a right to recover under the provision of the statute, by reason of the unlawful detention of the property.
    
      II L. Stevens, for complainant,..
    
      M. Wisner, for defendant. _
   By the Court, Pratt, J.

The value of the services of an attorney and counsel for the plaintiff in replevin, or any fees actually paid by the plaintiff to his attorney and counsel in the prosecution of a replevin suit, constitutes no part of the damages contemplated by the statute, and cannot be legally taken into consideration in the assessment of such damages.  