
    William L. Evans, Appellant, v. Paulina Silbermann and Others, Respondents. Same, Appellant, v. Bridget Curry, Respondent. Same, Appellant, v. Horatio A. Tiemann and Others, Respondents. Same, Appellant, v. Christian Hammel and Morgan Dix, Executor of John A. Dix, Deceased, Respondents. Same, Appellant, v. Herman Weil and Others, Respondents. Same, Appellant, v. Sarah Levy and Albert Sichel, Respondents. Same, Appellant, v. Johanna Feinberg and Others, Respondents. Same, Appellant, v. William Picken and Others, Respondents.
    
      Costs — taxation — only papers used before the clerk can be considered upon a review of his decision — d/rcming interrogatories — term fee, where the suit is discontinued at that term.
    
    Only those papers which were used before the clerk upon a taxation of costs can be considered upon a motion tp correct his decision.
    Under section 8251 of the Code of Civil Procedure a party is entitled to ten dollars for drawing interrogatories, although they may never have been served.
    Where a case is discontinued at the first term at which the case has been upon the calendar, upon the payment of taxable costs, no term fee is taxable.
    Appeal by the plaintiff in each of the above-entitled actions from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 22d day of April, 1896, as amends the printed papers on appeal from the order denying the plaintiff’s motion for a retaxation of costs, and the orders resettling and amending the same, and from so much of said order as amends the certification of the county clerk..
    
      Nelson Shipman, for the appellant.
    
      Edward W. S. Johnston, for the respondents.
   Per Curiam:

By order made January 30,1896, the plaintiff was permitted to discontinue the above-entitled actions upon payment of the taxable costs. The costs weré taxed on February 4,1896, and, against the plaintiff’s-contention, the cleric allowed items of ten dollars, in ten of the hills, for drawing-interrogatories, and items of ten dollars for term fees in all of the bills. On the taxation plaintiff submitted an affidavit of Joseph Larocque, Jr;, made February 3,1896', showing-that the only -notices of-trial-were for the-. January term, and that the interrogatories were drawn, but had never been served.. The clerk examined i-t, said it would- not be necessary for him to base his decision thereon, and returned it after the taxation. The same day the plaintiff moved for a retaxation upon, among other papers, the affidavit of February third, and another affidavit of Larocque, made February fourth, showing that the previous affidavit had been presented to the clerk on the. taxation.. An order was made February seventh denying the motion, which recited the reading and filing' of Larocque’s two affidavits, and affidavits of Edward W. S. Johnston and William H. Stockwell. Plaintiff then moved to resettle this order by- striking out the recital of the reading and filing of the affidavits- of Johnston and Stoclcwelh By order made February twenty-seventh not only this recital, but also that as to the consideration' of the two affidavits of Larocque, was stricken out.-

From the order denying, the motion for retaxation and the- order of resettlement, the. plaintiff. appealed. In making up thecase on appeal he included -the affidavits, the recitals, as to which had- been stricken out. Motion was made' to strike -them out and amend-the certification, which was granted; and- the plaintiff appeals :

1. Only the .paper's used before the taxing officer can properly be -considered upon a motion to correct liis decision. (Sherry v. Cary, 13 Civ. Proc. Rep. 256; Remington Paper Co. v. O’Brien, 18 Wkly. Dig. 209; Logan v. Thomas, 11 How. Pr. 160.) Larocque’s affidavit of February third would seem to have been before the clerk in such a manner as to render proper its consideration at Special Term. It was not filed, but it was presented - and considered — the clerk deciding that, in spite of the -undisputed facts therein set forth, he should have to allow the items in question. The true gist of the rule seems to be that the clerk-shall not be held in error on account of the existence of facts which were not made to appear until after the- taxation. But when- a-proper- sworn stater ment is presented to him there seems- to be no reason necessitating that it be filed. Hence the motion for resettlement should have: been -granted in the form made.
2. It was proper, however, to strike out the affidavits of Johnston, and Stockwell, which were not made 'until after the taxation. This-was the object of the motion to resettle, and the Special Term, should have stopped there.
. 3. Of course, tlie plaintiff was not remediless because the Special Term improperly struck out and refused to consider papers properly before it. He had a right to print them that the appellate court might decide whether or not the judge below was right in refusing; to consider them. There seems to have heen no necessity, however,, for printing the affidavits of Johnston and Stockwell. Striking them out did not prejudice the plaintiff, and none of the defendants-complained.

The result is, that, not only was it improper for the judge at; Special Term, in any event, to refuse to allow the case on appeal to-contain the affidavits of Larocque, but also that such affidavits were,, in fact, properly before the judge and were to be considered. The-order appealed from should be reversed, so far as to permit their insertion, without costs.

There seems to be no reason why this court should not go further- and decide the merits of the order denying the motion for a retaxation. The record contains in full all the papers affecting the appeal first taken, which was from this order and that resettling it as above: described. After d-ciding that Larocque’s affidavits were to be: considered, why should not the record, thus settled and established,, be examined ? ...

It seems that the items for interrogatories were properly allowed-Section 3251 of the Code allowed the sum specified for “ drawing-interrogatories.” This is in contrast with other portions of the-section, such as the allowance for “ making and serving a case,”' etc.; and it-seems plain that simply drawing the interrogatories is-sufficient. On the other hand, the term fees ought not to have been allowed. The order of discontinuance was made January 30, 1896. It was the costs then taxable that the court decreed should be paid, and no fee for that term was allowable as it was the first" at. which the case had been upon the calendar.

The order amending the certification -of the county clerk should. be modified so as to permit the insertion of Larocque’s affidavits, without costs; the order resettling the order denying a retaxation should be reversed,'and the motion granted as made, with costs; and the order denying the retaxation should be modified as above indicated, without costs.

Present—Van Brunt, P. J., Barrett, Patterson, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ.

The order amending the certification of the county clerk. modified so as to permit the insertion of Larocque’s affidavits, without -costs; the order resettling the oiider denying a retaxation reversed, and the motion granted as made, with.costs; and the order denying the retaxation .modified, as above indicated,'without costs.,  