Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 Johns. 248

Hasbrouck v. Baker

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1813

New York Supreme Court · decided 1813-05-15

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Baker brought an action on the case against Hasbrouck, before a justice, recover damages, which the plaintiff had sustained, by reason of the non-attendance of the defendant, as a witness, in a certain cause tried before a justice, in which the plaintiff was defendant, ant* in which Hasbrouck was regularly subpoenaed as a witness, The defendant pleaded the general issue.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1813-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1876

4 state decisions

201813182018301840185018601870decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The act for the recovery of debts to the value of 25 dollars, gives the justice power to impose a fine, not exceeding 10 dollars, on a witness who is absent, after being subpoenaed, without reasonable cause. The penalty of 50 dollars, besides a further recompense in damages, given by the act for the amendment of the law, (sess. 24. c. 90. s. 20.) evidently applies only to the case of witnesses making default in courts of record. It is made a question, therefore, whether any remedy, besides the fine of 10 dollars, is given against witnesses making default injustices’ courts. But when we consider that the fine, in such case, does not go to the party aggrieved, but to the poor of the town, there must be a remedy to the party for the injury he sustains, and which ought to be by a special action on the case, for damages.

¶2*251The suit, in this case, therefore, was well brought. The case, *1ien~ thrns upon the proceedings in the cause. The defendant was not bound to attend, unless regularly subpienaed as a witness; and as the plaintiff admitted that he had the suhpcena in his possession, it ought to have been produced as the highest evidence of the fact. The confession of the party will not, in such a case, supply the omission of such a document. (Jenner v. Joliffe, 6 Johns. Rep. 9.) The proof produced was very feeble; but here was a fatal errar- The judgment must, therefore, be reversed.

¶3Judgment reversed,.

/10/johns/248 · .json · Public domain