Court Opinion

ID: 9944193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 16:26:58.625884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:13.150808
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION TO RETAX COSTS
Appellee has filed a motion to retax the costs in this case. The motion is in two parts which we shall consider separately.
(Hn 5) 1. The first division of the motion is to disallow the costs of the court reporter against appellee for including in his transcript forty-two pages of the arguments of counsel. The motion requests that this part of the transcript be taxed against appellant. Appellee says that he did not request the court reporter to take down and transcribe the argument. The court reporter certifies that it was requested by counsel and does not state which counsel. Appellant has filed a response to the motion wherein it confesses the motion and agrees that an order may be entered accordingly. The court reporter's fees for taking down and transcribing the argument of counsel will therefore be taxed against appellant.
(Hn 6) 2. The second portion of the motion is directed to the clerk's fees for copying into the record pages 54 to 72, inclusive, which consist of motions and orders for subpoenas duces tecum, and subpoenas duces tecum, and other subpoenas for witnesses and pages 76 to 90, inclusive, which contain other subpoenas for witnesses, *Page 16 
and page 75 which is merely a list of the jury, and pages 129 and 130 which is merely a bill from a cafe for meals for the jury. These items aggregate 37 pages of the record which add nothing thereto and should never have been copied therein. By Rule 2 of the Revised Rules of this Court we have specified in plain terms what should and should not be copied into the record. We are daily confronted with records from all parts of the State where there has been no effort to comply with Rule 2 in making up records for appeal. We called attention to this less than two years ago in the case of Carroll Notion Co. v. Neville, 217 Miss. 699, 714-715, 65 So.2d 146-147. See also Y. M.V.R.R. Co. v. Levy, 147 Miss. 211, 113 So. 325; U.S.F. G. Co. v. White,106 Miss. 28, 63 So. 329.
Motion sustained.
McGehee, C.J., and Lee, Kyle and Holmes, JJ., concur.