charge for loss of time, as witnesses. The matter was settled, before, in the Court of King's Bench, in the case of "Moore v. Adam." The court were therefore of opinion, that as far as this allowance for loss of time, the taxation should be reviewed.
Mr. Sergeant Lens then proceeded to other parts of the rule, and contended that the apportioning of the costs between the Phœnix and Imperial Insurance was the fairest mode which could be adopted, as each had two actions, though they were not all tried, and the evidence in each was the same.
The Chief Justice asked how much the expense of the experiments made amounted to.
The Prothonotary said that all the items were so mixed up, that it would be impossible to ascertain at that moment.
The Chief Justice—It is important that the charge for experiments should be known. The opinion of men of science is received as evidence, because it arises from pre-existing science; but surely, as in the present case, they ought not to acquire their knowledge at the expense of the parties against whom their evidence is to weigh.
Mr. Sergeant Vaughan, on the same side with Sergeant Lens, submitted that it could never have been intended that men should not be allowed some recompense for loss of time. It would be not only an injustice, but a cruelty in many cases, if such a principle were to be adopted. Indeed, the principle was constantly departed from, in cases where the time of individuals had been a good deal engaged. In the case of Lopez v. De Tastet, the evidence of a Spanish captain of a ship was taken, and it caused him to delay a considerable time in town, and in the taxing of the costs a round sum was very properly allowed by the prothonotary, which, no doubt, was meant not merely to cover his expenses in town, but to compensate him for the loss of time.
The Chief Justice.—We had a consultation, not long since, in a well-known case, and in another place, whether the profits of a voyage should not be allowed for, and as to
