
    John Haughton et al., Appellants, v. W. J. Bilson, as County Surveyor, etc., et al., Appellees.
    
    No. 16,875.
    HEADNOTE BY THE REPORTER.
    
      ‘Costs — Abstract of the Record — -Printing Unnecessary Matter. On an objection to the amount claimed as costs on account of the printing of an abstract, the rate charged held to be reasonable, but the amount reduced one-third because the abstract was not sufficiently condensed.
    Appeal from Greenwood district court.
    Opinion filed May 6, 1911.
    Order on objections to costs. Costs retaxed.
    (For original opinion, see ante, p. 129.)
    
      M. M. Suddock, for the appellants.
    
      S. F. Wicker, Howard J. Hodgson, and Gordon A. Badger, for the appellees.
   Per Curiam:

The appellees have filed an objection to the costs claimed by the appellants (Haughton v. Bilson, ante, page 129), on the ground that the abstract was unnecessarily prolix and that the rate charged for printing it was excessive. The charge per page is found to be reasonable, but we think by proper condensation the size of the document could have been reduced by at least one-third. A reduction of one-third will therefore be made from that item of -costs.  