Case Name: John W. Argabright v. State of Nebraska
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1896-01-21
Citations: 46 Neb. 822
Docket Number: No. 8148
Parties: John W. Argabright v. State of Nebraska.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 822–823

Head Matter:
John W. Argabright v. State of Nebraska.
Filed January 21, 1896.
No. 8148.
Bill of Exceptions: Order for Transcript of Evidence .■ PRACTICE. An order will not be made in this court requiring a reporter of the district court to prepare a transcript of evidence preliminary to the settlement of a bill of exceptions, when the record discloses that a like order had been made by the proper district judge upon the precedent condition that the reporter’s legal fees should first be paid, there being shown neither a compliance with such order, nor an attempt to review it.
Error to the district court for Nemaha county. Tried below before Babcock,' J.
Heard on a motion by plaintiff in error to compel the court stenographer of the first judicial district to furnish a transcript of the evidence upon which the case was tried.
Motion overruled.
W. H. Kelligar and John S. Stull, for the motion.
A. S. Churchill, Attorney General, and George A. Day, Deputy Attorney General, contra.

Opinion:
Ryan, C.
The plaintiff in error has applied ' to this court for an order to compel the reporter of the first judicial district of this state to furnish a transcript of the evidence upon which this cause was tried. We find in the record that, upon an application to Hon. A. H. Babcock, the district judge who presided at said trial, for an order requiring that said evidence be extended without payment, on account of the poverty of the plaintiff in error, said order was refused, but that in that connection it was found that the said reporter, as a condition precedent to making the transcript required of him, had demanded from one of the attorneys of plaintiff in error his fees for making such transcript, but that such payment had been refused. It was ordered, however, that said reporter furnish the required bill of ex-oeptions upon the tender to him of his legal fees for such services. As there has been no attempt to review or comply with the order, plaintiff in error is not entitled to the order asked in this court. Accordingly it is denied.
Motion overruled.