{
  "id": 11278524,
  "name": "STATE vs. GEORGE DOLLAR",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Dollar",
  "decision_date": "1872-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "626",
  "last_page": "627",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "66 N.C. 626"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 110,
    "char_count": 1437,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.353,
    "sha256": "f6485f725699cfc2e4d9041d5db51cb1b111df957b6fd7a078f8a0807a567b93",
    "simhash": "1:580a1f93167ce362",
    "word_count": 260
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:37.048272+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE vs. GEORGE DOLLAR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per OukuM.\nThe Act of 1870-\u201971, section 133, chapter 139, shows that the Court has power to allow compensation to a witness summoned as an expert. It is admitted, in this case, that $10 was a reasonable fee. The motion to retax should be allowed. This will be certified.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per OukuM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE vs. GEORGE DOLLAR.\n1.\u00b6 One summoned, as an export in a criminal action is entitled to extra coia- \u25a0 pensation under the Act of ISTO-\u2019tl, chap. 139, see. 133.\nMotion to retax costs, heard before Watts, Judge, at Special 'Term, January, 1872, of Wake Superior Court.\nThe indictment was for rape, and Dr. E. B. Haywood was summoned, not as a witness to any fact, but as a professional expert.\nIn was admitted that the State was liable to be taxed with the fee for his attendance as a witness.\nThe Clerk, in taxing the bill of costs, was presented by the \"witness with a bill for $10 as a proper fee for his attendance..\nThe Clerk declined to allow the same, and allowed the usual fee for attendance as a witness.\nA motion was made before His Honor to retax the costs and allow the witness compensation as an expert. It was admitted that the fee of $10 was reasonable, provided witness could prove attendance as an expert.\nHis Honor was of opinion that the witness was not entitled to any compensation as an expert, and disallowed the motion, and directed the ordinary fee to be taxed.\nFrom this judgment the witness, E. B. Haywood, appealed to the Supreme Court."
  },
  "file_name": "0626-01",
  "first_page_order": 648,
  "last_page_order": 649
}