
    D. P. Caldwell vs. The State.
    Costs. When judgment is arrested. ' Act of 1Í94, eh. 1, § Í4. When a motion in arrest of judgment is sustained, the court should render judgment against the parties respectively for their own costs. An arrest of judgment, is not contemplated in the general act upon this subject, of 1194, ch. 1, § 14.
    EROM WEAKLEY.
    This was a presentment against the plaintiff in error in the circuit court of "Weakley county, as the proprietor of a turnpike road, for not keeping the same in proper repair. There was a conviction in the court below before Fitzgerald, judge, and a motion in arrest of judgment being overruled, and judgment given, an appeal in error was taken to this court. The presentment was made in 1854, and charges the offence to have been committed in 1851, continuously until the “taking of this inquisition.” This court arrested the judgment upon this defect, and ’disposed of the costs in accordance with the opinion.
    M. D. Caedwell, for the plaintiff in error.
    Sneed, Attorney General, for the State.
   - McKinney, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The judgment in this case was arrested, and the question is, as to the disposition to be made of the costs of the cause. The act of 1794, ch. 1, § 74, which provides: “That in all actions whatsoever, the party in whose favor judgment shall he given, or in case of a non-suit, dismission, or discontinuance, the defendant shall be entitled to full costs; unless where it is or may be otherwise directed by law,” does not apply to a case where the judgment is arrested. The question was before us in a case at Nashville several terms since; and in that case we followed the rule of the common law, in such cases, so far as to hold, that each party was liable for his own costs; but, that looking to the analogies furnished by our own statutory regulations on the general subject of costs, no valid reason existed why, upon a motion in arrest of judgment being sustained, the court should not proceed to render judgment against the parties respectively for their costs.

On further reflection, we adhere to this view, and lay it down as the rule to govern the disposition of costs in such cases.  