
    UNITED STATES v. VAN DUZEE.
    APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT .OP THE UNITED STATES FOK THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA.
    No. 1244.
    Reported on page 169, ante.
    
    This correction announced May 25, 1891.
    The court makes a correction in paragraph seven of its opinion in this case.
    The opinion of the court in this case is reported ante, 169. The seventh paragraph of the opinion is as follows (p. 175):
    “ 7. Objection is also made to fees for entering orders for trial, and recording the verdict, in thirty-eight criminal cases,, the claim being that such services are- included in the fee-allowed ‘ for making dockets and indexes, issuing venire, taxing costs and all other services, on the trial or argument of a cause where issue is joined and testimony given, three dollars.’ The argument is made that the entry of an order for' trial, and the recording of the verdict are not services rendered upon the trial and argument of the cause, since the order for trial precedes the trial and the verdict follows- it. Referring to the clause in question, however., to determine what shall be deemed services on the trial of a case, we find that issuing venires and taxing costs are included among such services; The former of these certainly precedes the actual trial, and the latter follows not only the verdict, but the judgment. We think it follows from this that the docket fee was intended to include these services. If it does not, it is not easy to say what it was .intended to cover.”
    The names of counsel are stated on page 170.
   Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

Upon a reconsideration of the seventh paragraph of our opinion in this case, we have come to the conclusion that the item for.entering the orders for trial, and recording the verdict should be allowed. We think the docket fee of three dollars was intended to cover the entry of the case upon the docket, indexing the same, making cotemporaneous minutes and entries upon the docket or calendar and such1 other incidental services as are not' covered by other clauses of the statute. Where, however, the entry is not a mere memorandum, but' requires to be made part of a permanent record, it is a proper subject for a charge per folio.

The item- in this- case was properly allowed by the court btelow as for “ making a record.”

The opinion in the above case will be varied to this extent.  