The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-05-13
TROUBLE IN SIGHT
New Rule With Reference to
Appeal of Cases.
Supreme Court Makes Ruling
Concerning Court of Appeals.
RE TAX THE COSTS.
Poor Man May Hereafter Go to
Higher Court.
RE-TAX THE COSTS.
Other News From the Various
State Departments.

The supreme court has handed down
a decision of great Importance and one
which may cause re-taXation of thou-
sands of dollars of costs in cases al
ready pending in that tribunal. The
question which was raised was in the.
suit of the Santa Fe versus I. P. Camp
bell and the point was suggested by W.
Littleheld OF this city, one of the Santa
Ee attorneys.
There are two ways in which cases
may be taken from the court of appeals
to the supreme court. One is designated
as "a matter of right Cases come un-
der this head when a constitutional
question or the title to land is involved.
The other may be upon an order from
the supreme court, the judges of which
in their discretion decide whether the
appellant is entitled to such an appeal
This case came under the first order
In appeals taken matter Of right
the rules of the supreme court provide
that proceedings in such cases shall be
the same as in appeals from district
courts and the practice has heretofore
been for the party taking the appeal to
have the record made up by the clerk
of the court of appeals upon the plain
tiff's application and at plaintiffs cost.
In the case mentioned in the foregoing
Mr.. Littlefield, attorney for the plaintiff
in error, filed a motion asking for an
order of the supreme court directing the
clerk of the court of appeals to prepare
copy of the transcript of the record
of that court and send it to the supreme
court, the cost thereof to be taxed as
costs in the case.
Rule 10 of the supreme court provides
that when a petition for an order to
certify has been allowed, the clerk of
the court of appeals shall prepare
copy of the record and transmit it to
the supreme court, the cost thereof
to be taxed as other costs.''
Mr.. Littlefield contended that the
rules of the supreme court make this
particular provision applicable to ap-
pealS taken as a matter of right and
that in the case which he was interest
ed the clerk of the court of appeals
should prepare a transcript and tax
the cost thereof "as other costs.''
The supreme court sustained this con-
! tention and has made a general order
| to cover the decision upon this question
| concerning transcripts.
! A great number of appeals as a mat
| ter of right have been filed in the su-
preme court and the cost of the trans
| cript paid by the plaintiff in error and
| even if he wins he has never recovered
| judgment for the cost of such trans
| cript. The costs so paid in this court
| aggregate thousands of dollars and it is
| probable that an effort will now be
| made in all cases where plaintiffs have
| won in the supreme court, to have the
| costs re-taxed.
The most important feature of the de-
| cisiOn is in the fact that it will enable
! litigantS to appeal as a matter of right
| who under the former practice of the
| court, have been prevented so doing
| by their inability to advance the money
| to pay for the necessary transcript