
    ALFRED T. L. YAP v. WAH YEN KI TUK TSEN NIN HUE OF HONOLULU, HERBERT A. B. CHANG, ET AL.
    No. 4012.
    Argued February 2, 1959.
    Decided February 10, 1959.
    Rice, C. J., Stainback and Marumoto, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

Plaintiff-appellant who prevailed in this court filed a motion for taxation of costs, as follows:

Complaint and 19 services..................................$ 62.50
Deposition of Chang Chan................................ 36.00
Cost on appeal.................................................... 25.00
Notary fee.......................................................... .50
Order to show cause............................................ 4.50
Deposition................._....................................... 2.00
Service of notice and order of deposition............ 3.00
Transcripts of hearing........................................ 10.80
$144.30

Defendants-appellees agree that the cost on appeal and the amount paid for transcripts of hearing are taxable. They resist the taxation of other items on the ground that they are circuit court costs as to which final liability is not determined until final judgment. (Kamalu v. Lovell, 5 Haw. 181.) In Tyler v. Wise, 21 Haw. 166, this court sua sponte held as to an item of costs in the circuit court: “As the case was sent back for a new trial, we think it proper that this item should abide the final result in the lower court * * However, in Coulter v. Schofield, 32 Haw. 426, this court held that R.L.H. 1925, § 2553, now R.L.H. 1955, §219-16, gives the party prevailing in this court the right to the present allowance of the costs in the circuit court, “though their final award may abide the event.” Coulter v. Schofield is the last authoritative ruling of this court on the question and we follow the ruling there.

W. Y. Chav for appellant, for the motion.

Clarence W. H. Fong (Fong, Miho & Robinson) for appellees, partly contra.

Plaintiff-appellant’s motion is granted, and costs are taxed in the sum of $144.30.  