Watson v. Dampier

• Decision Date: 18 November 1918
• Docket Number: 907.
• Citation: 97 S.E. 519,148 Ga. 588
• Parties: WATSON, SHERIFF, v. DAMPIER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

97 S.E. 519

148 Ga. 588

WATSON, SHERIFF, v. DAMPIER.

No. 907.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 18, 1918

Syllabus by the Court.

The judge of the city court of Dublin has authority to compel obedience to the judgments, orders, and processes of the court (Civil Code 1910, § 4644, par. 3), and to inflict punishment by a fine or imprisonment for contempt of court by the misbehavior of any of the officers of the court in their official transactions, and the disobedience or resistance by any officer of the court, or other person, to any lawful order, rule, or command of the court (Civil Code 1910, § 4643).

The judge of that court has the power, under the act creating the court (Acts 1900, p. 130, § 42), to appoint a stenographer of the court, one of whose duties prescribed by the act shall be to "report all criminal cases when either the defendant or the state's attorney demand it, and whenever the judge in his discretion shall require any criminal cases reported whether either party demands it or not. Said stenographer shall be paid for his service in reporting all criminal cases five dollars for each day's work while actually engaged in reporting and transcribing his stenographic notes."

(a) In the absence of the regularly appointed stenographer, the judge has the implied power to appoint a substitute, or stenographer pro tem., to perform the duties of the absent stenographer.

(b) Where, in the absence of the regularly appointed stenographer, the judge requested another person, who had under similar circumstances acted as stenographer and been paid for his services to act as the stenographer of the court, and to, as such, perform the duties of the office, and such person complied with the request, and undertook to perform such duties, he thereby became, while so acting, the stenographer of the court and a court officer, and subject to the same rules and orders of the court as the absent stenographer, notwithstanding there was no written order appointing him, and no oath of office was administered to him.

(c) That an oath, under such circumstances, was not indispensable. See Mechem, Pub. Off. § 6, and cases cited in note 2.

Where in the absence of the regularly appointed stenographer of the city court of Dublin, the judge of that court requested another person, as stated in paragraph (b) supra, to report a criminal case then on trial in the court, and this person undertook to comply with the...