
    A. C. Esselman vs. W. P. Brown, Adm'r.
    
    Costs. Witnesses as to character in action of slander. Act of 1Y83, ch. 11, § 4, construed. The act of W83, ch. 11, § 4, regulating coats in civil actions, which provides that the party cast shall not be obliged to pay for more than two witnesses to prove any single fact, has no reference to witnesses testifying to the general character of a party. The taxing of costs in such case is a matter purely within the discretion of the judge before whom it is tried, who may charge the party cast with the attendance of all the witnesses whose testimony, in his opinion, was material upon the question of character.
    PROM GILES.
    This was a question of costs from tbe circuit court of Giles, arising upon tbe construction of tbe act of 1783, ch. 11, § 4, which provides that “ the party cast shall not he obliged to pay for more than two witnesses to prove any single fact.” James Shannon, the intestate of defendant in error, in his life time recovered judgment against A. 0. Esselman in an action of slander for five hundred dollars damages, and costs. On the trial the defendant examined sixteen witnesses impeaching the plaintiff’s general character, to rebut which the plaintiff examined thirty-one witnesses. At a subsequent term the defendant moved the court to correct the taxation of costs, by discharging him from the attendance of all the plaintiff’s witnesses exeejot two. This motion was refused by the court, Martin, judge, presiding, and the defendant appealed in. error to this court.
    
      W. E. Cooper, for the plaintiff in error,
    cited and relied upon the act of 1783, ch. 11, § 4.
    John O. Brown and John 0. Walker, for the defendant in error,
    cited 1 Hay. Rep., 21, 22. Holmes vs. Johnson, 11 Iredell Law R., 55, 60.
   McBjnnet, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The authorities referred to fully establish, and correctly, as we think, that the rule is not applicable to a case like the present, where the point involved was the general character of the plaintiff.

The general character of a party, as justly remarked, cannot properly “be called a single fact? The attack, as well as the defense, in such case, must ordinarily involve various distinct facts and circnmstanees: making it absolutely proper and necessary to summon a number of witnesses. In such cases, the “party cast,” cannot claim, as a matter of right, to be discharged from the payment of all but two witnesses on the opposite side': On the contrary, he may be properly charged with the attendance of all the witnesses, whose testimony, in the opinion of the court, was material and neeessary in the particular case. The matter must, therefore, in a great degree be left to the discretion of the judge before whom the trial tabes place.

The agreement of the parties contained in the record, is not necessary to be noticed, as it can have no bearing on the question.

Judgment affirmed.  