Cited by

of inestimable value in the administration of justice.” Hayes v. State, 109 N.H. 353, 355 (1969) (quotation omitted).

Moreover, even assuming this line of questioning did violate the pretrial order, the trial court has broad discretion to determine whether such a violation warrants setting aside the verdict and ordering a new trial.

Accordingly, the sole determinant of Ribblesdale’s right to payment for the appraisal fee is the meaning assigned to the term “costs.” In Hayes v. State, 109 N.H. 353, 252 A.2d 431 (1969), the plaintiff requested expert witness fees under RSA chapter 233, the predecessor statute to RSA chapter 498-A, the Eminent Domain Procedure Act.

*731 Because the issue is likely to arise again on retrial, we also address the defendant’s argument concerning self-defense.

Mitchell v. Dover, 98 N.H. 285, 99 A.2d 409 (1953); Eichel v. Payeur, 107 N.H. 194, 219 A.2d 287 (1966); Hayes v. State, 109 N.H. 353, 252 A.2d 431 (1969); LeClerc v. Gray, 112 N.H. 430, 298 A.2d 116 (1972); Faust v. General Motors Corp., 117 N.H. 679, 377 A.2d 885 (1977).

Costs may not be enforced against the sovereign in the absence of a waiver, Hayes v. State, 109 N.H. 353, 252 A.2d 431 (1969), and the State will not be deemed to have waived “unless it does so expressly or ‘by implication of such reasonable clarity that the courts need not strain the words of the statute to reach a conclusion.’ ” State v. Peter Salvucci, Inc., 111 N.H. 259, 261, 281 A.2d 164, 166 (1971).

Thus, unlike some other cases, e.g., Hayes v. States, 109 N.H. 353, 252 A.2d 431 (1969); Eichel v. Payeur, 107 N.H. 194, 219 A.2d 287 (1966); Perreault v. Lyons, 99 N.H. 169, 106 A.2d 380 (1954), we cannot sustain the trial court’s decision on this ground.

This issue not having been raised below is not properly before us on appeal.

The defendants rest their case upon the holding of this court in Hayes v. State, 109 N.H. 353, 252 A.2d 431 (1969) and upon RSA 525:14-a, the general statute relating to costs.

There is no doubt that in this State, a defendant who prevails in an eminent domain action may recover expert witness fees against the State.

In this State that discretion has been given broad latitude.

If the trial court’s duty in this respect is to be meaningful his discretion must be broad.

The court stated: “RSA 76:17 and 17-a authorizes only the payment of interest and makes no mention of costs.

This was in addition to the fee for his expert testimony which the trial court allowed as part of the statutory costs.

Hinse v. Burns, 108 N.H. 58, 226 A.2d 865 (1967); Hayes v. State, 109 N.H. 353, 252 A.2d 431 (1970).

Public Service Co. v. State, 102 N.H. 54, 58, 149 A.2d 874, 877 (1959); Holte v. Rondeau, 105 N.H. 304, 199 A.2d 100 (1964); Hayes v. State, 109 N.H. 353, 356, 252 A.2d 431, 434 (1969).