TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Israel v. State

Israel v. State, 8 Ind. 467 (1857)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 16, 1857
Judges
Perkins
Citations
8 Ind. 467
Headnotes
Indictment for a felony. Acquittal. Motion to tax the fees of defendant’s -witnesses against the State. Overruled. It was contended, arguendo, .that the statute of 1855 requires the costs to be so taxed. Held, that it should not be so construed. It was further insisted that the costs should be so taxed under the provision of the constitution declaring that “no man's particular services shall be demanded without just compensation.” Held, that the services of witnesses, in criminal cases, are not “particular services,” within the meaning of the constitution; but are of the class of general services which every man is bound to render for his own and the general good.
Summary
APPEAL from the Jasper Circuit Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Perkins

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Perkins, J.

Indictment for a felony, trial, and acquittal. Motion to tax the fees of the defendant’s witnesses against the State. Motion overruled. The only question made in the cause is upon the denial of said motion. It is contended that the statute of 1855 requires such taxation of costs; but we do not think it should be so construed (1) .

It is further contended that the Court should have *468 ^axe<^ ^e cosfs under that provision of the constitution which declares that, “ no man’s particular services shall demanded without just compensation.” But we do not think so. The old constitution contained a like provision, but we believe it never was understood to extend to witnesses in criminal trials, and the provision in the new constitution should not be so understood. Ve do not propose to go into a discussion, with a view to a definition of “particular sendees;” but we are prepared to say, that the services of witnesses in criminal cases are not particular, but are of the class of general services which every man in community is bound to render for the general, as well as his own individual good. It is as much the duty and interest of every citizen to aid in prosecuting crime, as it is to aid in subduing any domestic or foreign enemy; and it is equally the interest and duty of every citizen to aid in furnishing to all, high and low, rich and poor, every facility for a fair and impartial trial.when accused; for none is exempt from liability to accusation and trial. These are matters of general interest and public concern, — are vital, indeed, to the very existence of free government, and render the services of witnesses on such occasions matters of general public interest, and not particular, in the sense of the constitutipn (2) .

B. H. Milroy, D. Donald, and A. G. Porter, for the appellant (3) .

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with the costs of this motion.

Laws of 1855, p. 312, s. 17, and p. 114, s. 26.

Const. Ind. art. 1, s. 21.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1872–1873: 11876–1877: 21886–1887: 11894–1895: 11896–1897: 11898–1899: 11910–1911: 11954–1955: 11984–1985: 11990–1991: 12002–2003: 218722026peak 1876 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bayh v. Sonnenburg573 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. 1991)
  2. Emery v. State688 P.2d 72 (Or. 1984)
  3. State ex rel. Morris v. Wallace41 Ind. 445 (1872)
  4. Henley v. State98 Tenn. 665 (1897) · Dissent
  5. In re Selser105 A.2d 395 (N.J. 1954)
  6. Daly v. Multnomah County12 P. 11 (Or. 1886)

Most recent

  1. Eggleston v. Pierce County64 P.3d 618 (Wash. 2003)
  2. Cheatham v. Pohle764 N.E.2d 272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)
  3. Bayh v. Sonnenburg573 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. 1991)
  4. Emery v. State688 P.2d 72 (Or. 1984)
  5. In re Selser105 A.2d 395 (N.J. 1954)
  6. Pardee v. Salt Lake County118 P. 122 (Utah 1911)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list