Opinion ID: 1986699
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Appellant's Motion

Text: The appellant filed a motion that this Court decide the issues only on the appellant's brief and on the oral argument, because of the appellees' late filing of their brief and appendix under Maryland Rule 830 a and e. We withheld action on the motion pending arguments on the merits. Action of the Court under the Rule is discretionary. Swift v. State, 224 Md. 300, 303, 167 A.2d 762 (1961) and Foster-Porter Enterprises, Inc. v. DeMare, 198 Md. 20, 38, 81 A.2d 325 (1951). The appellees' brief added little to the argument that had been made before Judge Pugh, as his opinion shows, except for some review of the testimony to support the findings of the lower court. The lateness of the filing did not prevent the preparation and filing of an able reply brief by the appellant. Because there has been no prejudice to the appellant or impediment to the Court's schedule caused by the default, the motion will be denied. Swift and Foster-Porter, supra ; see also, Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Coppage, 240 Md. 17, 22, 212 A.2d 523 (1965) and Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Borinsky, 239 Md. 611, 617, 212 A.2d 508 (1965). However, we are of the opinion that the filing of the appellees' appendix, which also was filed late, is to be considered in the matter of the awarding of costs. This appendix consists of 341 printed pages; the cost of printing, per page, was higher than the per page cost of printing the record extract, and there is some duplication. Moreover, the appendix consists of extracts from the testimony of witnesses, other portions of whose testimony was set forth in the record extract, so that the Court, in reviewing the evidence, has been forced, at considerable inconvenience, to piece together the contents of the three formidable separate volumes. Maryland Rule 828 c provides, in part: Whenever possible, the parties shall by stipulation agree on the parts of the record to be included in the printed extract. The only explanation of counsel for the appellees for the failure to reach an agreement on a joint extract was that there was a misunderstanding between counsel as to the parts of the record to be included in a joint appendix; no reasons for the misunderstanding were given. Rule 882 a provides: In all cases in this Court the awarding of costs shall be in the discretion of this Court, but unless it is otherwise ordered by this Court costs shall be awarded against the losing party. We have exercised our discretion under this Rule where we deemed it proper under the circumstances. Moser v. Board of County Comm'rs of Howard County, 235 Md. 279, 284, 201 A.2d 365 (1964) and Reese v. Mandel, 224 Md. 121, 130-31, 167 A.2d 111 (1961). The cost of printing the appellees' appendix was $2334.50. This amount of the costs is to be paid by the appellees; the remainder of the costs is to be paid by the appellant. Motion of appellant denied; decree affirmed; costs to be paid by appellant, except that the cost of printing the appellees' appendix, in the amount of $2334.50, shall be paid by appellees.