The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-12-02
COSTS IN APPEAL CASES.
An Important Question to Come IN
BEFORE Justice Cnic.

, The matter OF the ia King OF costs in
appeal cases from justices of the peace
| will probably come up for final settlement
before Justice Cole, of the Supreme Court
| of the District, during the current week.
The question will be called up in ccnnec-
| ton with the settlement of some cases
on appeal from justices of the peace. The
| old practice CT taxing costs under the act
of 1867 Will be upheld by Clarence A.
Brandenburg and will be opposed by
! Thomas NJ. Fields.
These questions will come uD for con-
| sideration in connection with the taxing
| of costs in the case of Charles J. Cassidy
against Matthew Roberts. the fIrmer be-
| ing represented by Mr.. Brandenburg and
| the latter by Mr.. Fields. Before JUS
tice of the peace Cassidy obtained judg-
ment against Roberts for $751; and the
defendant appealed to the Supreme Court
OF the District. In that court the jury
awarded Cassidy cent damages and now
| the matter is coming upon Mr.. Field s
! motion to vacate the judgment for costs
entered against Roberts.
During the thirty-three years since the
passage Of the act of 1861 the method of
assessing costs has never been assailed
and is now being questioned for the first
time in this jurisdiction. 1t is understood
that Justice Cole will give particular at
tention to this matter, and his decision
will be looked forward to with great il
terest, both by the members of the bar
and litigants generally.
The two important questions which Will
be presented in connection with the set
Element of this matter are, whether or
not in appeal cases from justices of the
mo- }, boa lat,
covered are less than 800, and the YER
diets in the upper court less than 500,
such verdicts carry costs, and whether in
cases where the verdicts in the upper
courts are for less than s. in any arreal
cases. they also carry costs. These Ques
tions have recently been presented to the
Supreme Court of the District on mo-
tons to vacate judgments for costs 10
appeal cases where the plaintiffs re,ov-
cred verdcts for ! cent only. Argument
on these questions was set for hearing
last week before Justice Cole, but was
postponed until some day during the cur
rent week.
II is said that the law passed in 1867,
which prohibits the taxing of costs against
the plaintiff in cases originating in The
upper court. where the verdict is for an
amount less than 500 and a magistrate
as well. 1t is further contended that this
law applies TO all verdicts secured in The
higher courts where the amount is less
than S..
1t is claimed that ever since its passage
the law has been inapplicable to appeal
cases. and full costs have been uniformly
taxed upon verdicts for even l cent, where
they could not be taxed in original cases.
it is also said that upon general principles |
of law applicable TO costs. in all appeal
cases where a plaintiff RECEIVERS substan
TALLY less In the upper court than he did |
be:ore q justice Of the peace, not only |
should the plaintiff not have costs, but the |
defendant should have them. The claim is |
also made that under various statutes in /
force in this jurisdiction, when the plain |
titf's demand is reduced to any consider |
able extent in the upper court on appeal by |
the defendant, the latter is the prevailing |
party, and as such is entitled to have costs |
taxed in his favor.
During the thirty-three years that the
act Of 1867 has bean in force in this juris-
diction. 1t is said there have been thou
sands and thousands of dollars taxed and /!
paid in appeal cases, and the question is
now raised as 10 the power Of the court to
AK costs in such cases. The matter is con-
sidered by attorneys very important one,
ind the decision of the Supreme Court of
he District on the question in point will
De far reaching.