ETC., OF CITY OF NEW YORK.
BRICKILI. et aI. v. MAYOR. E'I'C., OF CITY OF NEvV YORK.
(Circuit Court, S. D. Xew York. April 4, 1893.)
A master's fee on adjoumment of a hearing should be paid by the party asking the adjournment, and it is the better practice to pay such fee when the adjournment is had. On a hearing before a master, each party should pay, in the first instance, the costs, charges, expenses, stenographer's fees, and master's fees for taking its own direct, redirect, eross, or recross examination of any witness or witnesses; but on final decree the sum so paid by the prevailing party may be imposed on the defeated party.
In Equity. Suit by William Brickill and others against the mayor, etc., of the city of York. On a question as to pUjIUent of maRter's fees and other costs. Raphael J. Moses, Jr., for complainants. Betts, Alterbury, Hyde & Betts, for defendant. Circuit Judge. In this case the master's fees are fixed at $20 for an entire day's session, (both morning and aftern"on;) $10 for a half session; and $5 for each adjoUl'nmput. As tll this latter item, it is a desirable practice, always, to pay that fee when the adjournment is had, and it should be paid by the' party asking for the adjoul'llment. ""Vhen the master's bill is aujnsted on thit, basis, each side should pay, in the first instance, for its -.)\vn adjournments, and for the costs, charges, expenses, (including stenographer's fees,) and master's fees for taking its own direct, redirect, cross, or recross examination of any witness or witnesses. Upon filla! decree the sums so paid by the prevailing part)' may be imposed upon the defeated party. An order to such effect will be made.
BRICKILL et aI. v. :MAYOn, ETC., OF CITY OF ::\'K\V YORK.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
April 17, 1893.)
EQ1:rTY-HEAltING BEFORE MASTER-EXPENSE OF TAKING Tr,;sTBlO:SY.
At a hearing before a ma",t.er tlw party who calls a witness must pay the expense of taking the dired and redirect examinatioll of such witness, but his adversary must pay the expense of taking the cross and recross examination. '''here a se",sion is t.'1ken up e1ltirely with taking testimony, the expense of taking which is to be tome by one party, the master's fees for that session must be paid by such party. \Vhere a session is taken up with taking testimony, for a part of which one party is to pay, and for the remainder of which the other party is to pay,the master's fee for the session is properly chargeable, in equal shares, to both parties, irrespective of the proportionate amount of time consumed by them. Sessions consumed in whole or in part by argument may be settled for in the same way.
Time consumed in the consideration and decision of questions involved._ and in preparing the report, are chargeable, in equal shares, to both parties. .
II). Equity. Suit by William Brickill and others against the lU,ijior, etc., of the city of New York. On a question as to muster's fees, and other costs. See 55 Fed. Rep. 565.
Rapbael J. Moses, Jr., for complainants. Betts, Alterbury, Hyde & Betts, for defendant. IJACOMBE, Circuit Judge. I have signed the order sulnnitted by defendant because it recited that the master's fees, oalculated accor(Jjrig to the rUle before designated, amounted to the sums named. As counsel now state there is some error in the calculation, I shall The complainant hold the order till these amounts are entirely misapprehends my former memorandum. When a party calls a witness, he is to pay the expenses of taking direct and redirect examination of that witness. His adversary is to pay the expenses of taking the cross and recross of the same witness. As to apportioning master's fees: When a session is taken up entirely with taking testimony, the expenses of taking which one side is to· bear, the D;laster's fees fOr that session are to be paid by that side. If, however, the session is taken up partly with taking testimony which One side is to pay for, and partly with taking testimony which the other side is to pay.for, the master's fee for that session is chargeable, in equal shares, to both, irrespective of the proportionate amount of time consumed by both. Sessions con· sumed in whole or in part by argument may be settled for in the same way. Time consumed in consideration: and decision of the qnestions involved, and in preparing the report, is chargeable, in. equal shares, to both parties. If there is any difficulty abont making the calculation in this case, the order may stand as signed, since both parties seem to agree that the apportionment is equitable.
.UNITED STATES v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. et at. (Circuit Court, S. D. California. No. 184.
PUBLIC'LANPS-RAILROAD GRANTS-SUIT 'TO DECLARE INVALID-ENJOINING THE CUTTING OF TIMBER. . .
May 3, 1893.)
In a suit by the United States to invalidate a railroad company's claim to certain lands under a grant from congress, and to annul patents which hadiSSlled' for part of the lands, as well as such contracts and deeds as had been made by the "company to individualpurchasers,:who are made parties >to the suit, an injunction to restrain the cutting of timber from the lands will not be awarded in advance of the hearing on merits, when the answer sets up facts which,· if proved, may sustain the company's. title. .