EEDERAL REPORTER.
8. SAME—WITNESSES’ Fans Nor Pam.
Where witnesses are paid in one or more cases, and not in others, the evi-
dence is strong that they are never to be paid; especially where the lapse of
time is great between the rendering of the service and the taxation.
i 9. SAME+—DEPOSI'DIONS or Wrrnnssns Swear: IN Moms: Casas rum ONE. _
Where the deposition of a witness was taken and entitled in several suits, he
being sworn in each, but his deposition was written down only once, and there
was no agreement that the solicitor’s fee of $2.50 should be taxed but once for
the group of cases, such fee is taxable for the deposition, in each case.
_ 10. SAME-FEES Pam rmt Sims Wrrrmss IN Moms: rum Oran Cass:. , _
In the absence of any rule of court, or special order, or stipulation of parties,
a witness is entitled under section 848 to his fee for each day’s attendance m
court in each suit in which he attends.
11. SAME—Ur:a·rr-sian Comms or Pumas Pur nw Evmnrzon. .
Where, under section 983, copies of papers necessarily obtained for use are
put in evidence, andrno order is made rejecting them as evidence, it 1s_tl1e
duty of the clerk to allow, on taxation, the disbursements paid for the various
copies put in evidence and forming part of the record for iinal hearing.
12. SAME—1NCOMPETENT Arm lnnunnrsn Tnsrrmour. _
Where, upon an appeal from the taxation of costs, a party for the nrst time
applies to the court to declare certain depositions to be incompetent and imma-
terial, it is asutticient ground for denying the application that the party d_1d not,
at or before the hnal hearing, or before the taxation of costs, move to strike out
the evidence in question.
In Equity.
Henry S. Hoyt and Frederic H. Betts, for plaintiff. _
W. H. L. Lee, B. F. Lee, and J ohn Dane, Jr., for defendants.
Bmronronn, Justice. In suits Nos. 1, 9, and 10, hearings were
had on pleadings and proofs, and decrees directed for the plaintiff, in
April, 1881. Wooster v. Blake, 8 Frm. Bar. 429. Afterwards, on the
application of the defendants, those cases were reheard, because of
decisions made by the supreme court in January, 1882, and the bills
were dismissed in July, 1884. Wooster v. Handy, 21 FED. REP. 51.
At the same time, after hearings on pleadings and proofs, the bills
were dismissed in the other seven cases. Wooster v. Howe Machine
C0. 21 FED. REP. 67.
, The questions now to be considered arise on appeals by both par-
ties from the taxation by the clerk of the defendants bills of costs.
The amounts of the bills in the several cases, as offered for taxation,
the amounts disallowed, and the amounts taxed, were as follows:
smrs. V orrnasn. D1sALLOWED. TAXED.
No. 1, ·--- $1,555 29 35 486 40 $1,068 89 »
No. 2, - - - 2,707 46 340 19 2,367 27
No. 3, .... 261 86 _ 24 25 237 61
No; 4. • ' • - 203 42 89 25 114 17
No. 5, ° ' - - 237 92 2550 212 42
No. 6. .· - · — 249 67 27, 25 222 42
N0. 7, · - ~ i - - 168 52 122 50 46 02
No. 8. - — _- ,·§ -. • 157 57 · 115 00. 42 57
No. 9, ° · - - 190 63 38 74 151 89
N0. 10, --·· 160 27 V 28, 35 131 92
I· * ~ i $5.892 61 ’ $1,297 43 $4,595 18