Feb. 1893.] Opinion of the Court- SCOTT, J. of Pierce county at a time and place specified. At the time of the hearing the appellant appeared by an attorney and objected to the proceedings on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction in the premises, for the reason that the appellant resided more than twenty miles from the place where he was cited to appear as aforesaid. This objection was overruled. There In such a matter as this the appellant is summoned rather as a witness than as a party to a proceeding. Such proceedings are authorized to be taken before a court or judge, and are special in their nature. No presumption can attach in favor of the jurisdiction of the court. was no proof submitted to the court in any way that the defendant resided within twenty miles of the place at which he was commanded to appear and testify. Section 524 aforesaid authorized the judge to make an order requiring such person to appear before him, or a referee appointed by him. Section 525 declares that a witness may be compelled to appear and testify before the judge or referee upon any proceedings under this chapter as upon the trial of an issue of fact. Section 1650 declares that no person shall be obliged to attend as a witness before any court of record, judge, referee, etc., in any civil action or proceeding out of the county in which he resides, unless his residence be within twenty miles of such court, judge, etc. In this case, before the appellant could have been adjudged guilty of a contempt of court, it should first have appeared that he resided within the jurisdiction of the court. Otherwise a party might be summoned and compelled to appear from a remote part of the state, to make his objections to a proceeding in which he had no interest whatever, except to protect himself from paying money or delivering property upon an invalid order. We do not think that such can be the intent of the law, and before a party can be punished for a failure to obey Opinion of the Court-DUNBAR, C. J. [5 Wash. the summons, it must appear that the court had jurisdiction over him, and a residence within twenty miles, as aforesaid, is one of the essential requirements. It follows that the superior court had no jurisdiction to make an order adjudging the appellant guilty of a contempt of court, nor to render any judgment against him whatever in said proceedings, and the same are in each and every part reversed and set aside. DUNBAR, C. J., and HoYT, ANDERS and STILES, JJ., concur. [No. 836. Decided February 4, 1893.] A. WEBER, Respondent, v. GEORGE W. YANCY, Appellant. Appeal from Superior Court, King County. Burke, Shepard & Woods, for appellant. Emmons & Emmons, Paden & Gridley, and Hawley & Prouty, for respondent. OPINION ON MOTION. DUNBAR, C. J.- Respondent in this case brings to this court a short record, and moves the court to affirm the judgment appealed from, and for judgment in this court for the amount thereof, together with interest and costs, against appellant and his sureties, for the reason that appellant has failed to file a transcript of the case within the time prescribed by law. In consideration of the showing made by the appellant in extenuation of his failure to file the transcript within the time prescribed by law, we think it would be too harsh a judgment to dismiss the appeal, or affirm the judg ment, but inasmuch as the respondent had a right under the rules of the court to make the motion he has made in this case, we deem it but just to impose terms upon the appellant, and it is, therefore, ordered that upon the payment by appellant to the attorney for respondent, within ten days, of the sum of twenty-five dollars, the motion will be overruled, and if not so paid within that time, the motion will be sustained, and the appeal dismissed as prayed for. ANDERS, SCOTT, HOYT and STILES, JJ., concur. Opinion of the Court-STILES, J. Feb. 1893.] [No. 440. Decided February 7, 1893.] BELLINGHAM BAY AND BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILROAD COMPANY, ON MOTION TO RE-TAX COSTS. Per Curiam.-This is a motion to re-tax costs, and the motion is as follows: "Come now the above named respondents and respectfully petition the above entitled court for an order re-taxing the costs taxed by the clerk of the above entitled court herein, on the ground and for the reason that said costs have been improperly taxed by the clerk, and on the further ground that said costs have been improperly allowed to the appellants by the clerk of this court." The judgment was rendered in this cause May 12, 1892, the remittitur issued July 30th, and the execution issued August 13th; so that nearly eight months have elapsed since the opinion was rendered, and nearly six months since the execution was issued; under these circumstances the motion for re-taxation of costs will not at this time be entertained by this court. Further, the motion is so indefinite that the opposite party has no notice of what particular items of costs are objected to. For these reasons the motion will be refused. The other questions raised in the discussion of the case we do not now pass upon. [No. 863. Decided February 20, 1893.] SEATTLE AND MONTANA RAILWAY COMPANY, Respondent, v. THE Original Application for Certiorari. Ashton & Chapman, and Andrew F. Burleigh, for petitioner. STILES, J.-This is a petition of the Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad Company and others for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the superior court of King county in adjudging the proposed appropriation of certain rights-of-way in the city of Seattle a public use. We are of the opinion that all of the questions which could be raised upon certiorari in such a case can be as well determined upon appeal; and as the statute provides for adequate protection to the petitioner through the bond required to be furnished by the condemning party, the application is denied. DUNBAR, C. J., and ANDERS, HOYT and SCOTT, JJ., concur. 5 807 Case 2 e29 495 INDEX. ACTION. See ASSUMPSIT; ATTACHMENT, 1; DESCENT AND DIS- ANIMALS. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1; MUNICIPAL COR- APPEAL. 1. Statement of Facts-Settlement Subsequent to Day Appointed. 2. Harmless Error - Departure in Pleading. Although the 46 67 3. Failure to File Transcript - Excuse. An appeal will not be |