Meyer v. City of San Diego

THE COURT.

—In the memorandum of costs filed by interveners is the item, “To reporter’s fees, $114.87.” Defendants made a motion to strike, from this item $92.37, upon the ground that the amount was for reporter’s fees for transcribing the evidence for the use of interveners, and that no order was ever made by the court authorizing the evidence to be transcribed. The court made an order denying the motion, and

[36]

this appeal is from the order. It is conceded that if the transcript was ordered by the court, the item was a proper charge. Being included in the verified memorandum of costs property filed, it is

prima facie

correct, and the burden is upon tho moving party to show that the charge is not a legal and proper one. In support of their motion, appellants offered the affidavit of their attorney, which stated that the amount was paid the “ reporter for transcribing the evidence taken in the said case, upon the trial thereof, ... for the use of said interveners.”

In the bill of exceptions it appears that the attorneys all desired the evidence transcribed by the reporter, and after some conversation as to how the costs should be apportioned, the judge of the court remarked, “Yes; the testimony will have to be transcribed.” Thereupon the attorney for appellants, addressing the court said, “If the court please, I would like to know, for my own satisfaction, exactly what is going to be included in this item of costs.” The judge answered, “The reporter’s fees and the transcript.” The attorney for appellants said, “And the transcript of the evidence?” The judge answered, “Yes, sir. I will order one transcript, — the court must have a transcript of this evidence.” The above is all that appears to have been said by the judge of the court as to ordering the evidence transcribed. It appears from the conversation of counsel at the time the order was made, that it was understood that only one copy was ordered by the judge. It does not clearly appear from the record that only one copy was ordered, but conceding that the order was for one copy only, it does not appear that the item was not for such copy. There is not a word in the affidavit or the bill of exceptions to show or tending to show that the charge was for testimony transcribed for interveners without any order of court. If such was the case, the appellants should have made it clearly appear. The presumption in the lower court was in favor of the memorandum as filed. The presumption here is in favor of the order of the lower court. It is urged by appellants that the order for transcribing the notes was made by Judge Torrance, and that this court afterwards held that he was not qualified to try the case, and hence the order was void and the item thereof not a proper charge. If this were a valid reason for rejecting the item, appellants could have availed themselves of it as to the reporter’s