
    Caleb H. Bradley, Appellant, v. Joseph B. Vernon.
    
      Practice, S. G.—Paper-boohs—Failure to print testimony.
    
    Where the appellant fails to print in his paper-book the greater part of the testimony, the Supreme Court will assume that the portions of the charge assigned as error are fully warranted by the testimony.
    Costs— Witness fees— Chester county.
    
    Witnesses who reside in the county town of West Chester are entitled to receive one dollar per day for attendance at court in Chester county.
    Argued Feb. 18, 1895.
    Appeal, No. 68, Jan. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Chester Co., on verdict for defendant.
    Before Sterrett, C. J., McCollum, Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit for proceeds of farm sold to defendant.
    Appellant failed to print in his paper-book sufficient of the testimony to enable a proper statement of the case to be made.
    The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant, upon which judgment was entered.
    Defendant claimed witness fees at the rate of one dollar per day for witnesses residing in West Chester. The prothonotary allowed the claim. Exceptions to the taxation of costs were dismissed by the court, and execution awarded for the purpose of recovering the costs.
    
      Errors assigned were (1) portion of charge; (2) answer to a point; (3) in deciding that witnesses who reside in the county town of West Chester are entitled to receive one dollar per day for attendance at court in the county of Chester (4) in awarding an execution for the purpose of collecting one dollar per day as fees for six witnesses who resided in West Chester.
    
      W. S. Harris, for appellant.
    
      George B. Johnson, for appellee.
    March 11, 1895:
   Per Curiam,

Appellant’s omission to furnish us with the greater part of the testimony that was introduced on the trial offends against the seventeenth rule of court. In the absence of that testimony he has no right to ask us to convict the court of error in charging as complained of in the first specification. It would be unfair to tbe court below, as well as to the appellee, for us to assume that the instructions were not fully warranted by the testimony in the case.

There was no error in ruling as stated in the third specification ; nor in awarding execution for the witness fees referred to in the fourth specification.

As presented to us, the record discloses no error that would justify a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.  