
    Hiram Arnold v. David R. Bright et al.
    
      Costs.
    
    Act 30 of 1879 reducing the register’s fees on appeals does not apply to a case where the fees had been earned before the act went into effect.
    The Supreme Court will not usually review matters of fact bearing on the taxation of costs,- on affidavits. '
    Motion for retaxation of costs on tlie ground (1) that they had been taxed according to the usage followed before the passage of Act 30 of 1879, -which requires the original papers to be returned to the Supreme Court instead of copies, and fixes the register’s fee for the service at $5; and (2), that there was an overcharge for printing the record.
    Submitted and denied October 7.
    
      T. B. Sherwood for the motion.
    
      II. C. Briggs against.
   Per Curiam.

It appears that the appeal in this case was taken February 25, 1879, and made returnable April 5th, and that the statute went into effect April 3d after the work necessary in making the return had been performed and the regular fees earned. The statute is not so far retrospective, if at all, as to apply where the register had already earned his fees when it went into effect.

There are affidavits tending to show that the charge for printing the record was too high, and there are also counter affidavits, but the Supreme Court will not review disputed questions of fact in such cases unless under very peculiar circumstances.

Motion denied.  