
    Brown & Browning vs. Hollister.
    A party to a buit, who recovers a judgment, is entitled to witness fees, when his attend. anee at Court íb necessary as a witness.
    
      Circuit Court, Kalamazoo County,
    
    
      November Term, 1869
    Isaac A. Brown and William F. Browning brought suit againtt George F. Hollister, in assumpsit. Pendiug the snit, Browning assigned all his interest in ihe subject matter of the suit, to plaintiff Brown. On the first trial the jury disagreed. On the second trial a verdict was rendered for plaintiff,
    ' On taxation of costs, Brown made and presented to the Clerk, his affidavit, in which, he sets up that Browning was a material witness, on both trials, and would not have attended Court except, at Brown’s request to testifiy in the cause. Thereupon the Clerk taxed as a part of the plaintiff’s costs, $32.46 fees and milage for Browning, as a witness.
    
      J. W. Breese, for Plaintiff.
    
      May and Buck, for Defendant.
   Brown, J.

This is an appeal from the decission of the Clerk, in taxing as a part of plaintiff’s bill of ^osts, witness fees and milage for the attendance at Court of one of the plaintiffs. From the statement agreed' upon by Counsel for the resptctive parties, the taxation by the Clerk was proper; nor is it material that Browning had no pecuniary interest in the result of the suit. Had he made no assignment to Brown, the rule would be the same, if his attendance was necessary, as a witness, and his presence in Court' was for the sole purpose of testifying.  