EDISON ELECT'RIC LIGHT CO. V. MATHER ELECTRIC CO.
Providence any greater rights than" it previously had. The acquiescence and agreement between the parties amounted to nothing more than a recognition of both parties that the line f, g, was the boundary line between the two companies. There is nothing in the facts of this case which gives to complainant any right to extend that line, as a boundary line, any further than to point g, at which point it comes to the line g, h, which, as before stated, is the northerly end line of the Providence surface location, and beyond which, in a vertical line drawn downward, the complainant has no right to any part or portion of the "back" vein, either by virtue of the Provi· denee location, patent, act of 1872, or any agreement or estoppel between the parties. Let a decree be drawn designating the boundary plane fixing the rights of the parties in conformity with the views expressed in this opinion, for a perpetual injunction, and for an accounting, if so desired; each party to pay their own costs.
EDISON ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. v. MATHER ELECTRIC CO. (District Court, D. Connecticut. No. 723.
EXAMINER'S FEES-TYPEWRITTEN TESTIMONY.
June 12, 1894.)
Examiner's fees are restricted in the second circuit to $3 a. day and 30 cents a folio for typewritten testimony.
Appeal from Olerk'sTaxation of Oosts as to Examiners' Fees. Under the head of "Examiners' Fees" the complainants presented the following items for taxation, 'iz.:
Examiners' fees: 6 days occupied @ $3 ..··········.....·.· 18 00 2 00 8 exhibits filed & identified @ 25 cents... 60 6 Witnesses sworn @ 10 cents... 442 fol. evidence taken @ 20c. . . . · · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88 40 Examiners' & typewriters' fees for do. . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . .· 84 60
The clerk taxed the bill as follows, viz.:
6 days occupied @ $3·.......·..·.········.·.·········.···· 18 00 8 exhibits filed & identified @ 25c....................... ... 2 00 .....·.... .. ..··.·.. ...·· 60 6 witnesses sworn... All examiners' & typewriters' fees, 442 fol. @ 20c ....·. ..... 88 60 109 20
The testimony was typewritten, and there was typewritten therein what was claimed to be a valid stipulation in the case, although it did not otherwise appear in the record, as follows, viz.:
It is stipulated by counsel for the respective parties that the testimony of the witnesses may be taken stenographically, and that the transcription of the stenographer's notes may stand as the testimony of the witnesses, subject to inconsequential changes. It is also stipulated that the stenographer may subscribe the witnesses' names to the depositions, in lieu of the signatures of the witnesses themselves.
The certificate of the examiners showed that the testimony was taken under such stipulation by a stenographer, counsel for the respective parties being present, and that the stenographer caused his notes to be typewritten thereafter, and that the testimony
80 written o:o.twas never read: over to or signed by the witnesses, as required by the rule, as amended May 2, 1892. The cOmplainant claimed that. new amendment to the seventh rule expressly authorized,the expenses of both typewriter and stenographer to be taxed, in. llddition to the 20 cents folio fee of the examiner, and did not limit ,the amount of such expense, and that the effect of the s.tipulation was. to constitute the typewriter the attorney in fact of the witnesSj and authorize him to sign whatever he s40uldwrite down as the evidence of the witness. The defendant claiDled that the testimony filed was mere consent iq obvious avoidance of the sixtyevidence, and. that it was seventh rule,and was not entitled to be taxed under that rule or any other. That, it the attendance and tacit agreement of defendant's at that time managing the case concluded defendant from now objecting to the validity of the evidence, still the defendant was not concluded from now objecting that the examiner, who did not take down any testimony, 'and the typewriter who did take it down, were both entitled to .20 cents folio fee for doing the Bame work. Dyer & Seely for complainant. Perkins & Perkins, for defendant.
TOWNSEND, District Jqdge.. The practice In this circuit is to charge 30 cents per folio and $3 per day in such cases, the same being intended to cover both examiner's and stenographer's fees. Let this bill of costs be taxed accordingly. No costs to be taxed on tlij.s motion. .
IMPERIAL LIFE; INS. CO
NEWCOMB. September 10, 1894.)
(Circuit Conn of Appeals. Eighth Circuit.
Motion for Rehearing. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastel'D District of MJ!Jl!l9.uri. ,Oharle8 Hagel and Chas. W;Bates, for plaintiff in error. PER OURIAM. A motion' for a rehearing in this case (62 Fed, _ .97) 1 is ma4e cnpon the ground that the court has not considered the lufticiency of the statement of the cause of action in the complaint, and of the record, to sustain the judgment. If we concede that these questions were properly presented the motion must still be denied, because they were both considered and decided adversely to the in ,error at the hearing, and the opinion clearly states that too opinionot the circuit 'COurt overruling the demurrer was approved, an4;tp.atno just exception to the report of the referee waa taken. The motion is denied.
c. C. A.. 288. '