Case ID: ny-st-rep_17/html/0996-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Horace Matthews,App’lt, v. Henry D. Matthews, Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
    
    
      Filed May 18, 1888.)
    
    Costs—Taxation of—Appeal from orders—When affirmed.
    On an appeal from an order taxing costs, the taxation will be affirmed in the absence of anything to show what items were allowed and what objections were made.
    Appeal from an order of the county court awarding costs.
    
      A. W. Boynton, for app’lt; F. A. Rowe, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

Proceedings were taken before the county judge to remove the defendants as holding over beyond their term certain premises belonging to plaintiff. The prayer of the petitioner was denied, and $33.18 was awarded as costs to defendants. The plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as awards the sum of costs.

It is not disputed that defendants were entitled to some costs. The question is whether they were entitled to the amount given. We have nothing in the papers to show what items were allowed. An affidavit showing the attendance of certain witnesses is in the papers. But we do not know whether the learned judge allowed for the attend • anee of these witnesses, and, if so, how much, or whether he allowed a certain amount as costs other than disbursements.

We are, therefore, asked to tax these costs, not to correct an error of the learned county judge in his taxation.

It should appear in the papers, either by the original taxation or by a retaxation, just what items were allowed by the county judge, and what objections were made by the plaintiff. We cannot correct any errors when we are not informed what they are.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.