Case ID: njl_9/html/0475-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael Hays ads. Daniel Williams.
    Tlie party obtaining the taxation of a bill of costs, must, upon a re-taxation, prove the items objected to.
    But the party moving for a re-taxation must give liis adversary notice, and state the particulars of the bill of costs to which lie objects, and the nature of bis objection.
    
      
      W Halsted,
    
    moved upon notice to re-tax a bill of costs in this case. The cause had been submitted to referees, and the objectionable items to which he took exception were the costs of the circuit at which the cause had, as he insisted, ■ been noticed, before, issue joined; and also the costs of the referees; and he contended that it was incumbent on the party obtaining the taxation of the bill to support it, upon the retaxation, by proof.
    *384] *The Chief Justice asked if the bill, as taxed by the clerk, was not to be considered as prima facie correct; and whether the onus of shewing it erroneous was not imposed upon the party excepting ?
    
      Hoisted
    
    replied, that the uniform practice, as far as he was acquainted with it, was for the clerk of the Supreme Court to rely upon the representations of the attorney, as to the costs accruing at the circuit or béfore referees, and to tax the bill in this respect as the attorney drew it. His taxation of items of this character ought not, therefore, to be entitled to the same respect as where the performance of the services, or items charged, appeared by the records of his court.
    Besides, it was in many cases impossible for the party objecting to the taxation, to prove that the service charged ■was not performed, whereas the party making the charge ought always to be prepared with the vouchers to prove it. Rev. Laws, 493, sec. 3 and 4.
    
      Wall, contra.
   Chief Justice.

After reflecting upon the matter, and considering that the practice has been to tax these items upon the representation of the attorney, we think the safe course will be to compel the party obtaining the taxation of the bill to prove them upon a retaxation. But then in future we shall require the party moving for a retaxatión to give notice to his adversary, and state the particulars of the bill of costs to which he objects, and the nature of his objection. 
      
       A general rule of practice to this effect lias been made by the court.