¶1 produced a notice to the plaintiff of an intended motion, by defendant, for a rule to show cause wherefore there should not be a new taxation of costs in this case. It was" an ejectment, in which, at the last term, there was judgment for the plaintiff (3 Hawks 51.) and it appeared that the clerk had taxed the defendant with the costs of several of the plaintiff’s witnesses, who had proved their attendance by tickets obtained on oath without specifying the particular term or terms at which they attended, and also without setting out the number of days’ attendance at each Court.
¶2 It also appeared that defendant was taxed with the costs of one of plaintiff’s witnesses for whom no subpoena appeared among the records below.
¶3 After argument by Haywood, the Court granted the-rule; and afterwards made it absolute, ordering the clerk to expunge from the bill of, costs such of plaintiff’s witness tickets as were liable to the first objection; and to issue a notice to the witness for whom no subpoena appeared; remarking, that he ought to have an opportunity of accounting for the subpoena, if any existed; and that if he had attended the Court as a witness without having been summoned, his tickets must he expunged also.