
    Benjamin C. Barry et al., Appellants, v. Adolph Winkle, Respondent.
    (City Court of New York, General Term,
    May, 1901.)
    Costs — In City Court of New York for failure to try a case, on the short cause calendar, within one hour.
    Where a case on the short cause calendar of the City Court of the city of New York is not tried within one hour and, consequently, is ordered to the general calendar, the trial court may impose upon the party, who put the case on the short calendar, reasonable costs for failing to complete the trial within one hour.
    Appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the Trial Term for short causes, ordering them to pay the defendant forty-five dollars costs. The attorneys had stipulated that the plaintiffs should move to put the case on the short cause calendar, the defendant to waive all costs resulting from the denial of the motion or from the restoration of the cause to the general calendar, if not tried within the time allowed by the court. Subsequently the defendant’s attorney, for reasons assigned, withdrew the stipulation, upon his part, and refused to be bound by it, although the plaintiffs had noticed the motion.
    Bullowa & Bullowa (Ferdinand E. M. Bullowa, of counsel), for appellants.
    Thomas M. Rowlette (John A. Straley, of counsel), for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

There was no waiver of the costs in question by the defendant. The order appealed from imposing forty-five dollars costs was proper. The case was on the short cause calendar and upon its trial the parties hereto had the right to one hour; if, at the end of that time, the court deemed it proper, he might order the case upon the general calendar. The case did take over one hour to try, and in pursuance of the power vested in him the trial justice ordered it to the general calendar and directed the plaintiffs to pay the defendant forty-five dollars costs for their failure to try the case in the time limited. The power of the court to impose reasonable costs in such instances has never to our knowledge been questioned. Even the plaintiffs’ attorney concedes the power of the trial justice to do so. See stipulation in the case. The plaintiffs in having this case placed on the short cause calendar, thus giving them an earlier trial than other litigants, having issues of even date, were the recipient of a favor. Their failure to do as required by the order granting them such favor, to-wit, to dispose of their case within one hour, created partly the disfavor of the court, which was properly expressed in this instance by the imposition of the costs in question, which were not unreasonable or a violation of sound discretion.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Present: Fitzsimons, Ch. J., Delehanty and Schuchman, J.

Order affirmed, with costs.  