Page:Medical jurisprudence (IA medicaljurisprud03pari).pdf/426

 whether a certain sum given to a captain of a ship should be looked upon as compensation for loss of time, or in the light of a bribe.

Mr. Sergeant Vaughan said he knew the case to which his lordship alluded. He went on to say, that the prothonotary had not made any specific allowance for loss of time as such, but had mentioned one sum for trouble, expense, and loss of time. As to the costs of the experiments which had been made, he submitted that in a case where the subject was quite new, and as they were not made wantonly or with a view to put a party to unnecessary expense, the costs of them ought to be allowed. They were made bona fide for this case; the materials and apparatus were also provided with reference to the present case alone. Under such circumstances, he submitted that they ought to be allowed; and he ought to add, that their affidavits set forth, that the experiments were made in consequence of its being known that similar experiments were made on the other side.

Mr. Sergeant Taddy followed on the same side, and observed, that while he admitted the general principle that expenses were not allowed for loss of time, except to physicians and attornies, he could not see why scientific men, such as chymists, should not be brought under the same rule as physicians.

The Chief Justice.—For this reason, that to a physician loss of time is considered as loss of profit. A physician cannot visit a patient by deputy, as the patient might not have the same confidence in that person as in that physician, and this I take to be the reason why the loss of time is allowed. For reasons similar in principle the loss is also compensated in the attorney.

Mr. Justice Park.—Suppose a clergyman, living in Cumberland, were summoned to give evidence in a canse in London, and that being delayed here for two or three weeks, he was obliged to employ a curate to officiate in his absence, have you any case where that expense would be allowed?