Hodgkins v. Welsh

59 F. 474, 1894 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9

Opinion

BUTLER, District Judge.

This was a summary proceeding, the amount being under $50. The libelant’s .proctor so regarded it, and took the benefit of rule 72 which dispenses with the libel-ant’s stipulation for costs. No proctor’s costs were therefore taxable without special allowance by the court. Such costs were claimed on taxation before the clerk and disallowed. The proctor “now moves the court to allow the usual costs to libelant and libel-ant’s proctor.” The “usual” costs in summary cases were allowed and taxed by the clerk. What I suppose the motion is intended to effect is a special allowance of proctor’s costs under the rule above stated. To justify the court in doing this, something should appear in,the case to distinguish it from ordinary summary proceedings. I do not find anything to so distinguish it. It was the libel-ant’s privilege to have the testimony heard in court, instead of having it taken before a commissioner, but he elected to pursue the latter course. Whether this was more burdensome than hearing it in court would have been, I do not know, nor is it important.

The motion must be dismissed.