We think it very clear that the defendant is liable to pay the witnesses for the whole time of attendance. The charge, of which he was convicted, was the same upon which the witnesses attended, and though the indictment was altered in point of form, yet neither the defendant nor the witnesses were discharged during the time; the latter were subpœnaed or recognized to give evidence against him on a specific charge; they did so, and he was convicted.
State v. Hashaw, 5 N.C. 251, 2 Car. L. Rep. 251 (1815)
July 1815
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
5 N.C. 251, 2 Car. L. Rep. 251
State v. Hashaw.
At September Term 1811, a bill of indictment was found against defendant, and was continued from court to court until September Term, 1814, when a nol. pros. was entered in consequence of a defect in bill, and a new bill was found against defendant for same offence, upon which he was tried and convicted.
Question for Supreme Court,—Is the defendant bound to pay the State’s witnesses from the finding of the, first bill unii the nol. pros. was entered?