
    [S. F. No. 308.
    Department Two.
    November 24, 1896.]
    J. J. RAUER, Appellant, v. JUSTICES’ COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent.
    Oertiobari—Review ot Justices’ Judgment tor Costs —Dismissal ot Writ—Record on Appeal—Petition—Docket Entries.—On appeal from a judgment of the superior court dismissing a writ of certiorari obtained to review a justice’s judgment, as respects the recovery of costs, which were claimed to have been no part of the judgment, but to have been inserted therein a month after the trial, the petition. for the writ forms no part of the record, and its allegations inconsistent with the docket entries of the justice cannot be considered; and where such docket entries show a judgment for costs apparently rendered on the day that the cause was tried, they are grima facie evidence that such was the truth, and if they are not rebutted by anything else in the record, the judgment dismissing the writ should be affirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco dismissing a writ of review. A. A. Sanderson, Judge.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      G. H. Perry, for Appellant.
    
      Kennedy & Gray, for Respondent.
   Britt, C.

Certiorari. Rauer, the petitioner, brought an action in the justices’ court against one Fields, in which action judgment was entered in favor of Fields for costs. To review such judgment Rauer obtained the writ in the present proceeding from the superior court; upon the hearing, after return made, the writ was dismissed. Petitioner claims that the provision for the recovery of costs against him was not part of the judgment as originally rendered in the case of Rauer v. Fields, but was inserted therein a month after the trial, and that in this the justices’ court exceeded its jurisdiction. The asserted fact of an antedated clause in the judgment does not appear from the justices’ docket entries returned with the writ. Those show a judgment for costs apparently rendered on the day Rauer v. Fields was tried; they are prima, facie evidence that such was the truth, and are not rebutted by an) thing else in the record. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 93, 912.) The petition for the writ, alleging matters inconsistent with the docket in this particular, is no part of the record on appeal, and cannot be considered here. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1077; Reynolds v. County Court, 47 Cal. 604.)

The judgment dismissing the writ should be affirmed.

Haynes, C., and Belcher, C., concurred.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment dismissing the writ is affirmed.

McFarland, J., Henshaw, J., Temple, J.  