This was, however, always a matter of serious concern to the author, and it is to these known deficiencies in all other systems, even in the hands of the greatest stenographers of the age, that Haven's Practical Phonography, with its possible speed of over 300 words a minute, greater than any ordinary rapidity of human utterance, owes its existence, presenting the only system of shorthand available for every purpose and every occasion, and with the legibility of print if correctly written.

As an illustration of how defective are all other systems of shorthand, and how impotent many of the supposed-to-be best reporters of the country are, where great speed is required, there happened, in a certain important case, in a certain city, to be employed three long experienced reporters, whose reputations were national in character, the supposition being that they had no superiors whatever in their profession. Their experience extended over thirty years in each case; two of them had been legislative reporters for much of that time, one in Congress and another as official reporter for a certain state legislature; while each were long practiced in courts and had possibly covered every field of work in their time. They presented in themselves the highest possibilities of the Pitman, Munson and Graham systems, and each happened to be hired by different parties to the suit in question. One was, and had been for years, the official shorthand reporter of the court in which the case in point was tried, and of course was reporting for the court at the time. The other two were respectively engaged by the plaintiff and defendant, neither of whom cared to rely on any stenographer not solely employed for that occasion by themselves, so important was the case. None of the lawyers doubted the skill of either of the stenographers, for there were no better known, but they each desired to run no chances of treachery - they preferred to possess their own transcription.

Unfortunately for those stenographers whose weak points were thus discovered, the lawyers of one side were not satisfied with the de. cision of the court, the case was appealed, and the testimony therefore ordered written up, it being done in this case separately by each. So much was at stake in this case that the lawyers studied their transcriptions very carefully, and each side, in their briefs, quoted from their separate transcriptions such entirely conflicting statements of witnesses, that the judge ordered a comparison of the three separate reports to be made, resulting in the discovery that no two of them were alike in every particular; each had made many omissions of a different nature, and in some instances what should have been the same paragraphs were astonishingly varying. The three separate transcriptions of the noted and expensive stenographers could not even be dovetailed to make a complete report, and the case had to be re-tried.

This is no exaggeration, but an unfortunately true illustration of the condition of nine-tenths of the most skillful members of the stenographic profession today, a condition which only the universal adoption of this Practical Phonography can change. In other words, there are very few verbatim reports made with the crude systems of shorthand that are in use. The ordinary official court stenographer depends too much on the fact that the testimony is generally too bulky for anybody to wade through it sufficiently closely to discover omissions, and that most witnesses cannot remember all they have said. Furthermore, that it often does not make any difference unless the case is appealed, for otherwise the evidence is not written out. But this course will not do for the stenographer with a reputation to make, and though others have shortcomings, the ambitious should not indulge in such false security, but should be pains-taking and see that an exactly verbatim report is made.

Questions and answers should be clearly shown in the reporter's notes, the names of the questioners being written outside the perpendicular marginal lines of the note-book paper written on, as shown in our shorthand court pages; the question following it, and the answer commenced a good distance from the question. the writer not permitting any answer to run back over one-half the distance of the paper, no matter how many lines it would require. When a lawyer's name is written once to a question it need not be written again, while he is questioning, but when another person interrupts him, then the name of the party interrupting, whether court or counsel, should be shown in the margin, and then before every interruption made or whenever a new person speaks, that person's name must be written before his remarks, but need not be written again unless an interruption occurs

If you write the name of the case and other particulars in shorthand on your book or paper, before commencement of the case, you can write it almost anywhere commencing with the margin as shown in our-shorthand plates, but when such information is written out in transcribed form, observe the forms shown in our type pages opposite our shorthand plates.

Objections can be taken in full or not, as you prefer, and should be written so that they will not interfere with testimony; only remember it is not necessary to transcribe such matter, literally for simply the words "Objected to" and 'Objection overruled" or "Objection sustained" as the case may be, are generally sufficient.

The first witness put on the stand, in any case, is always the witness for the plaintiff, and that witness belongs to the lawyer or lawyers conducting the plaintiff's side, or the prosecution, as the case may be; hence, the questions asked by that lawyer of that witness, are known as Direct Examination or Examination-in-Chief and so with any witness, whether for one side of the case or the other, the lawyer who placed the witness on the stand is the one who conducts the "Direct Examination." In other words, the Direct Examination or the Examination-in-Chief of any witness is always those questions asked by the lawyer who places him on the stand, and for the side he is testifying; so that, in any transcription, the Direct Examination comes first after any witness' name. It is the opposing lawyer always who conducts the Cross-Examination, and if the lawyer takes his own witness again and asks further questions, then that is Re-Direct-Examination; and when the opposing counsel after this asks other questions, that is Re-Cross-Examination. Further questions by the lawyer whose witness is on the stand, would be "Re-Re-Direct," and in the same way further questions by the opposing counsel would be "Re-Re-Cross-Examination, but it is very seldom that any witness goes beyond Re-Direct or Re-Cross-Ex-ami-nation.

When a lawyer simply makes an interruption, of one or two questions, they are not put under a separate head in the examination, but are simply shown where they occur, as on pages 183 and 185 in this book.

The case of the plaintiff is generally headed Testimony for the Plaintiff, or for the State, or for the Prosecution, or for the Appellant, or for the Contestant, according to the sort of case. When that side of the case is all presented, the lawyer for the plaintiff either states that their evidence is closed, or else, which is more likely, they say, "We rest," in which case the plaintiff implies that their case is done for the present. The evidence for the other side - the defense -then begins, and at the end of their case they may state that they rest their case. If the lawyer for the plaintiff thinks they have made a good case, or, have no more witnesses, it generally ends there, and the arguments begin; but, if a plaintiff desires to present additional testimony, then that part of the case is called the Rebuttal and must be so headed; and, if the other side then desires to combat this Rebuttal evidence by further testimony, that testimony in defense is called Sur Rebuttal.

When the evidence is all in, the words "Case Closed," should be written at the end of the report. In that case the arguments of counsel begin, which need not be reported unless the counsel agree to pay you for same, because argument is not evidence and it is only evidence and the decision of the court that counts in a case at law.

The judge's charge, however, if he has not got it written out, should be taken verbatim, or, if having it written, he makes any verbal remarks in connection with it, they must be taken verbatim, but any portion he reads from manuscript, either part or all, need not be taken.