The Fee Fight at the Courthouse
A legal battle over court costs reaches the superior court as the Clerk faces a mandate to lower his prices.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The latter portion of the revenue law passed by the last legislature was declared invalid by Judge Osborn yesterday in deciding the case of the Queen City Provision Company against T. W. Gordon, clerk of the superior court. The suit was brought to compel the clerk to file a transcript of a judgment from justice court on the payment of the regular fee of 50 cents per folio, the judge holding against the clerk. The plaintiffs had recovered judgment in justice court and wished to docket it against the property of the debtor, C. B. Walsworth. Mr. Gordon refused to docket the transcript, holding that it was a new civil action and not a probate, criminal or miscellaneous case, and that the fee required upon the beginning of a new case would have to be paid. The court decided that the transcript was not a new suit and sustained the demurrer of the plaintiffs. Mr. Gordon gave notice of an appeal to the supreme court.
“The court decided that the transcript was not a new suit and sustained the demurrer.”
Administrative disputes over court fees and bureaucratic hurdles remain a hallmark of the judicial system, reflecting the persistent tension between the cost of accessing justice and the funding of public offices. Much like this 1891 struggle, modern litigants in Seattle often find the path to enforcing a judgment obstructed by shifting interpretations of filing codes.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.