Ex parte Reis
California Supreme Court
Application for habeas corpus. The petitioner was treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco, and was adjudged "guilty and imprisoned for contempt of court for a refusal to pay, upon the order of the Superior Court, the compensation of the phonographic reporter of one of the departments of the court for taking and transcribing the testimony in certain criminal cases. The remaining facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.
— Immediately prior to the adoption of the Codes the law with respect to phonographic reporters of the courts in San Francisco was contained in the Act of March 13, 1866 (Stats. 1865-66, p. 232), and in the Act of March 28, 1868. (Stats. 1867—68, p. 425.) The first act authorized the district judges of San Francisco to appoint short-hand reporters, and provided that, in criminal cases, the compensation of the reporter *234“ shall be fixed by the court, and paid out of the treasury of the county — on the order of the court.” The Act of 1868 provided for the appointment of a reporter by the county…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Trower v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Ex parte WidberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Pratt v. BrowneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Stevens v. TrumanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- McAllister v. HamlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.