The Prothonotary.—In some cases, my lord, it is allowed.
The Chief Justice (after consulting for a short time with the other Judges) said we shall not say any thing more upon this, than that it must be referred back to the master to revise the costs, and that the experiments are not to be allowed: nor is allowance to be made for loss of time as such; but let it be understood that physicians are to be allowed as usual.
The Prothonotary begged to know how he was to reckon physicians, was it by diploma?
The Court said by practice. It was not to be expected that a physician was to take his diploma about in his pocket.
The Prothonotary again begged to trouble their lordships. There was another class of persons who were frequently allowed much more than any professional men—he meant surveyors. Sometimes very high charges were made for them. For instance, the late Mr. Rennie, who was summoned as a witness in the present case: his time was of the utmost value, as was that of others of eminence in that branch of science. He wished to know how they were to be allowed.
The Chief Justice.—We can know no distinction here. The time of such gentlemen as the late Mr. Rennie must no doubt be extremely valuable to them, but that of a poor man is equally valuable to him, and perhaps more so; for though the amount might not be as great, yet the support of his family might be depending on it.
Rule made absolute; and it was further ordered, that a moiety of the taxed costs should be paid by each of the Insurance Offices in question.
There was another case of “Severn v. Slade,” turning exactly on the same point, which was not argued, as of course the same decision will apply to it.
Two Notes on the Legal Time for Human Birth.
(From Hargrave’s Jurisconsult Exercitations)
[Lord Coke, in his Commentary upon Littleton, fol. 8. a. considers, who may inherit lands or tenements; and about the close of his remarks on that head, introduces the case of a woman brought to bed of a child, so as to raise a question whether the child was by her deceased first husband or by her second husband. His words are, “If a man hath a wife and dieth; and within a very short time after the wife marries again, and within nine months hath a child, so that it may be the child of the one or the other, some have said that in this case the child may choose his father, quia in hoc casu filiatio non potest probari; and so is the book to be intended: for avoiding of which question and other inconveniencies, this was the law before the conquest, sit omnis vidua sine marito duodecim mensibus, et si maritaverit perdat dotem.” In the margin also of the same book, he thus refers to authorities, “21 E. 8. 39 Pancirollus Nova Rep. 485, &c. Opus eximium, 48. b. Lambard de priscis Anglorum Legibus, 120. 72, &c.” and as to the year-book of E. 3. so cited, it shews, that the doctrine, of allowing the infant to choose which of the two husbands should be his father in the case so put, was attributed to Sir William de Bereford, who was made chief justice of the common pleas early in 2 E. 2.