STENOGRAPHER. One who writes in short-hand, by using abbreviations or charac ters for words.
He does not come within the common-law definition of the word "clerk." In re Appro priations for Deputies, 25 Neb. 662, 41 N. W. 643. Within the meaning of a statute ex empting 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 Ill. App. 642.
The depositions of witnesses taken in short-hand, and transcribed, will be sup pressed, if not read to and signed by the wit ness, though the witness' subsequent at tendance for the purpose could not be pro cured; In re Cary, 9 Fed. 754; but see con tra, Brown v. Luehrs, 79 Ill. 576, where it is held that the transcript of evidence taken in short-hand is admissible, where the ste nographer testif es that he transcribed the testimony, and that the transcript is corre,t; 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 stenog rapher'is not the only witness who may. be called, but any um who heard the testimony may be; State v. McDonald, 65 Me. 466; Brice v. Miller, 35 S. C. 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. & 0. R. Co. v. Myers, 80 Fed. 361, 25 C. C. A. 486; or a copy of testimony com pared 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 au thorizing the appointment of stenographers in the several courts of the commonwealth, the stenographer who actually takes the tes timony must certify to the correctness of the transcript which he 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 Ill. 271; Misner v. Dar ling, 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 au thorizes and directs him to make reasonable use of stenographers, and the charges there for must be classed with the ordinary charges necessarily inclined 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 ste nographer is not then an officer of the court; Coale v. Suckert, 18 Misc. Rep. 76, 41 N. Y. Supp. 583.
An association of stenographers, whose leading object is to control the prises charg ed by its members, is an illegal combination, and its rules will not be enforced; More v. Bennett, 140 Ill. 69, 29 N. E. 888, 15 L. R. A. 361, 33 Am. St. Rep. 216.
The dictation of a libellous letter to a con fidential stenographer is held to be sufficient publication of the libel; Gambrill v. Schoo ley, 93 Md. 48, 48 Atl. 730, 52 L. R. A. 87, 86 Am. St. Rep. 414.