Wright v. Nostrand
Opinion of the Court
By the motion papers it appeared that defendants’ attorneys had ordered an official copy of the minutes, which the stenographer had refused to write out, unless paid the sum of ninety dollars, in advance, as his fees. The defendants’ attorneys demurred to this charge as exorbitant and inquired of the stenographer at what rate per folio he computed his fees, and how many folios of testimony he had taken ; to which Mr. Parkhurst had replied that his fees were computed at fifteen cents per folio, and that he did not know precisely how many folios there would be, but by a process of “ estimating ” the same from the original minutes, he “ judged ” there would be about 600 folios, which, at the rate of fifteen cents a folio, would amount to ninety dollars. The defendants’ attorneys refused to pay this sum, but informed the stenographer that they would pay him at the rate of fifteen cents a folio of a hundred words by actual count, after the minutes should have been written out, but that they declined to pay in advance upon any process of “ computation ” less accurate than an actual account. This proposition not being acceptable to Mr. Parkhurst, the present motion was necessitated. And upon this motion counsel referred to sections 86 and 289 of the new Code, which it was stated on both sides embodied all the law applicable to the case. By section 86 it is provided that the official stenographer shall “ furnish, upon request, with all reasonable diligence, to the defendant in a criminal cause, or a party or his attorney in a civil cause in which he has attended the trial or hearing, a copy, written out at length, of the tes.
The judge, in like manner, overruled the suggestion made by the stenographer, that the Code nowhere provided that the number of' folios should be actually “ counted,” Mr. Parkhurst urging that it was also the practice of official stenographers to “estimate” the folios instead of counting them. Mr. Wilder, in rejoinder, mentioned to the court a recent case in which a stenographer’s bill had been reduced over one-third from its “ estimated ” amount, by the simple process of counting the "folios.
The court thought that counting was the proper course.
It was also urged by the stenographer that he was entitled to payment of fees in advance, before he wrote out his minutes ; and in justification of this plea he mentioned several instances in which attorneys, after ordering the minutes, had abandoned their appeals, and thus left the minutes on the stenographer’s hands unpaid for; to guard against which result Mr. Parkhurst said he had adopted the uniform rule of requiring payment in advance in all cases. Mr. Wilder waxed quite indignant at this suggestion, and stated that, if the stenographer would say that he had ever had any difficulty in collecting from him or from his firm, Thomas & Wilder, any bill whatsoever of any kind, or would state that he had ever
The court again sustained Mr. Wilder, and ordered the stenographer to write out his minutes and make out his bill at the rate of ten cents per folio of 100 words by actual count, and to furnish the same to defendants’ attorneys; adding, “ that attorneys, as well as stenographers, are officers of the court, and subject to its orders; and that in any case where it should be made to appear that an attorney had wrongfully refused to pay the legal charges of'the stenographer the court would protect the latter, by a summary order against the attorney.”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.