Knight v. The Chosen Freeholders of Ocean County

• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BEASLEY, CHIEF JUSTICE.
• Citation: Knight v. The Chosen Freeholders of Ocean County, 12 A. 625, 49 N.J.L. 485 (N.J. 1887)
• Decision Date: 15 June 1887
• Parties: HERBERT W. KNIGHT v. THE CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF OCEAN COUNTY

12 A. 625

49 N.J.L. 485

KNIGHT

v. OCEAN COUNTY.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June Term, 1887.

Case certified from circuit court, Ocean county.

Frank Bergen, for plaintiff in error. J. W. Carmichael, for defendant in error.

BEASLEY, C. J. By a statute enacted in the year 1871, the judge of the circuit court in the several counties of the state was authorized to employ a stenographer, who was required to attend all trials in said circuit court and in the court of oyer and terminer, and to record verbatim all the evidence and proceedings, and, when requested, to make and furnish true reports thereof to the judge, and to each party in the cause. The provision for the payment of such services was as follows: "The compensation of such reporter shall not exceed ten dollars per day, which sum shall be paid by the board of chosen freeholders of said county, on the certificate of said judge as to the number of days upon which he shall be employed: provided, that such reporter shall, for reports of evidence and other proceedings by him furnislied, be paid by the party in such cause requesting the same, at the rate not to exceed ten cents per one hundred words." This law was inserted without alteration in the last revision of the laws, being re-enacted as a part of that Code on March 27, 1874. On this same day another act was approved regulative of this subject, the pertinent clause being in these words, viz.: "That the compensation of the stenographer now appointed, or hereinafter appointed, in the several courts of this state for attendance in said courts, and for transcripts of proceedings of said courts, when furnished by order of the court, shall be fixed by the circuit judge of the said court, and paid by the county collector of the county in which the said court is held, upon the certificate of the said judge that such service has been performed by the said stenographer." The act contains a repealer of all previous inconsistent legislation. Paraph. L. 1874, p. 113. It is obvious from this collation of these statutes that their provisions touching the matter of present inquiry are largely inconsistent. The former act directs the stenographer to be paid at a fixed rate for his attendance, his recording the evidence and proceedings, and furnishing a copy of the same to the court; while the latter law provides that for such attendance, and for furnishing transcripts of his record of the proceedings, when furnished by the order of the court, he shall be paid by the county collector such compensation as shall be fixed and certified by the circuit judge. The question therefore arises, which of these two acts is to have...