
    James McKniff v. The County of Delaware, Appellant.
    
      Costs — Constable's fees — Mileage—Serving subpoenas — Statutes.
    Under the Aet of May 28, 1893, P. L. 117, a constable is entitled to mileage at the rate of ten cents per mile one way in the execution of a warrant. Por serving a subpoena he may legally charge fifty cents for each person named in the subpoena and actually served.
    Argued Nov. 17, 1897.
    Appeal, No. 71, Oct. T. 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Delaware Co., June T., 1897, No. 135, in favor of plaintiff on case stated..
    Before Rice, P. J., Wickham, Beaver, Orlady, Smith and Porter, JJ’.
    Affirmed.
    Case stated. Before Claytoh, P. J.
    It appears from the case stated that a warrant was issued to the plaintiff, a constable, for the arrest of one James Artwell, charged with malicious mischief. A subpeena for six witnesses was issued and handed to said constable for service. The constable subpoenaed the said six witnesses and arrested the said James Artwell. Artwell was discharged for want of evidence. The constable presented his bill to the county commissioners for $3.00 for serving said subpoena, which was refused, the balance of the bill having been paid.
    March 21, 1898:
    If the court be of the opinion that the county is required to pay the plaintiff fifty cents for each person named on the subpoena, then judgment for plaintiff and against the- defendant for $2.50, and if the court be of the opiuion that the defendant is only liable for fifty cents for a subpoena, no matter how many names appear on the subpoena, then judgment for defendant.
    The court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $2.50. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was entry of judgment for plaintiff.
    
      Isaac Johnson, with him T. Speer Ricltson, for appellant.
    
      W. Roger Eronefield, for appellee.
   Opiutou by

Wickham, J.,

For reasons, sufficiently set forth in the opinion, this day filed, in the case of Price v. The County of Lancaster, ante, p. 119, the judgment in this case is hereby affirmed.  