
    BIRD against THE CITY OF BROOKLYN
    
      City Court of Brooklyn,
    
    
      April Term, 1866.
    Costs.—Teem Fees.
    In an action in the city court of Brooklyn, only five term fees can be taxed. Tne practice of the city court of Brooklyn is regulated by the act organizing the court (Laws o/1849, ch. 102) in conformity to the practice of the supreme court.
    Term fees are allowed in that court; hut subject to the same restrictions as in the circuit of the supreme court.
    .Motion for a re-taxation of costs.
    This action was brought by John Bird against the city of Brooklyn. The plaintiff’s attorney procured to be taxed by the clerk of the city court of Brooklyn (in accordance with the previous practice of that officer) a bill of costs including an item of one hundred and fifty dollars, for fifteen term fees. Defendant’s attorney now moved for a re-taxation.
    
      Lucien Birdseye, for the plaintiff;
    Argued that the prevailing party was entitled by section 307, subd. 7, of the Code of Procedure, to ten dollars for each term at which the cause was necessarily on the calendar and not tried, or is postponed by order of the court, and that the limitation “ not exceeding five circuit, and five special and five general terms,” did riot apply to the city court, which had no special or general terms or circuits—the terms of the court being all for the same purpose, and having no distinctive name.
    
      D. J. Dean, & Sidney V. Lowell, for the defendant;
    Argued: I. That all terms of the city court at which causes were tried by the court and jury, were circuit, for all purposes to which provisions as to circuit trials applied, and that in taxing costs for such cases, they must be so taxed;—and:
    II. If not taxed in the same manner as in the supreme court, no costs could be taxed at all, as the only provision for the taxation of costs was the section of the Code referred to (307); and cited the local judiciary act for Brooklyn (Laws of 184.9, §4).
   Geo. G. Reynolds, City Judge.

Section 307 of the Code, subd. 7, which gives term fees, does not apply to the city court by any provision of the Code (See section 8).

There would, therefore, be no term fees taxable in the city court, but for section 4 of the act organizing the city court, which provides that “ all laws regulating the practice of the supreme court, and course of procedure therein, shall as far as applicable apply to and be binding upon said city court.”

Term fees in this court must therefore be taxed as they are in the supreme court. The same restriction applies as at the circuit. The plaintiff can only be allowed for five terms.

Ro costs of the motion, to either party.  