Stenographer

One who writes in short-hand, by using abbreviations or characters for words. He does not come within the common-law definition of the word “clerk.” In re Appropriations for Deputies, 25 Neb. GC2, 41 N. W. 643. Within the meaning of a statute exempting laborers’ wages from attachment, he was held a laborer; Cohen v. Aldrich, 5 Ga. App. 256, 62 S. E. 1015. Courts have the power to appoint them; People v. Kelley, 134 111. App. 642. The depositions of witnesses taken in short-hand, and transcribed, will be suppressed, if not read to and signed by the witness, though the witness’ subsequent attendance for the purpose could not be procured; In re Cary, 9 Fed. 754; but see contra, Brown v. Luehrs, 79 111. 576, where it is held that the transcript of evidence taken in short-hand is admissible, where the stenographer testifies that he transcribed the testimony, and that the transcript is correct; that the witnesses were sworn and testified as therein stated. See also Stewart v. Bank, 43 Mich. 257, 5 N. W. 302. Where it Is sought to impeach a witness’ testimony by proving his testimony at a former trial, the stenogmay be; State v. Mc Donald, 05 Me. 400; Brice v. Miller, 35 S. O. 537, 15 S. E. 768. A stenographic report of the testimony of an absent witness, at a former trial, may be admitted if complete and correct; Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co. v. Myers, 80 Fed. 361, 25 C. C. A. 486; or a copy of testimony compared with a stenographic report thereof, by a person who was present at the trial and remembers the testimony as given; Southern R. Co. v. Williams, 113 Ala. 620, 21 South. 328. See Memorandum. In Pennsylvania, where a stenographer is appointed under the provisions of an act authorizing the appointment of stenographers in the several courts of the commonwealth, the stenographer who actually takes the testimony must certify to the correctness of the transcript which hd files, and the trial judge should order the transcript filed and certify to its correctness; Woodward v. Heist, 180 Pa. 161, 36 Atl. 645, 1131. The charges of a stenographer are not taxable for costs in a suit in equity; Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 Fed. 42; but the agreement of the parties may make them taxable costs, though not so by statute; 1 Bingh. 345. See Phares v. Barber, 61 111. 271; Misner v. Darling, 44 Mich. 438, 7 N. W. 77. It is held that the use of stenographers is so general that it must be assumed that when a court appoints an auditor, it by implication authorizes and directs him to make reasonable use of stenographers, and the charges therefor must be classed with the ordinary charges necessarily incurred by the auditor, which together with the auditor’s fees are ordinarily taxable against the losing party; Corporation of St. Anthony in New Bedford v. Houlihan, 184 Fed. 252, 106 C. C. A. 394. Compensation for testimony taken before a referee is the subject of contract, as a stenographer is not then an officer of the court; Coale v. Suckert, 18 Misc. Rep. 76, 41 N. Y. Supp. 683. An association of stenographers, whose leading object is to control the prices charged by its members, is an illegal combination, and its rules will not be enforced; More v. Bennett, 140 111. 69, 29 N. E. 888, 15 L. R. A. 361, 33 Am. St. Rep. 216. The dictation of a libellous letter to a confidential stenographer is held to be sufficient publication of the libel; Gambriil v. Schooley, 93 Md. 48, 48 Atl. 730, 52 U R. A. 87, 86 Am. St. Rep. 414.