State ex rel. Lindsey v. Derbyshire

Citations

• 79 Wash. 227
• 140 P. 540

Syllabus

<p>Statutes — Titles and Subjects. The title of an act providing for tbe appointment of official court reporters, prescribing tbeir duties, and providing for their compensation, is sufficiently broad to embrace a provision requiring the payment of fees on the filing of appearances, to be taxed as stenographer’s costs.</p> <p>Appeal — -Review—Questions Considered. The refusal of a clerk of court to file a complaint until the stenographer’s fee of $1 is paid, as required by 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 42-1 et seq., does not raise any question as to the validity of that portion of the act relating to the use of the stenographer’s transcript as evidence.</p> <p>Statutes — Constitutionality—-Partial Invalidity. The invalidity of that portion of the act providing for appointment of official court reporters which provides for the use of their transcript as evidence does not affect the validity of the balance of the act.</p> <p>Taxation — Uniformity—Court Fees. 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 42-4, providing for the payment of a fee upon filing an appearance, to be taxed as stenographer’s costs, does not violate Const., art. 7, §§ 1, 2, and 9, guaranteeing a uniform and1 equal rate of taxation; the fee not being a tax or the act a revenue act.</p> <p>Constitutional Law — Special Privileges. The act, 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, §42-1 et seq. (omitting the last section), classifying judicial districts with reference to the population and providing for the appointment of official court reporters, does not grant special privileges, in violation of Const., art. 2, § 28, subd. 6, and art. 1, § 12, where the act is made applicable only to all judicial districts having a population of over 30,000; since the classification is reasonable and within the discretion of the legislature.</p> <p>Same — Class Legislation. The act, 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 42-1 et seq., (omitting the last section), providing for official court reporters in judicial districts of over 30,000 inhabitants, does not violate Const., art. 11