42 FEDBRAIi REPORTER. �The defendants did not object to a decree for an account, and that_decree was entered and the master appointed by consent. Both parties have prevailed and failed to some extent upon the items disputed and litigated, and far enough so that an appor- tionment of costs seems proper. Upon consideration of the items in dispute won and lost by the respective parties, and the time and expense probably spent upon each, it seems most just that the orator be allowed five-sevenths of his costs, and the defendants two-sevenths of theirs. �There is also a question about the charges of a stenog- rapher being a part of the costs. A stenographer was en- gagea by the parties to take down the oral testimony of wit- nesses upon the accounting before the master. The master has certified that this was done by his procurement as mas- ter, and that the charges should be taxed as costs of the accounting. It does not appear that the parties agreed that these charges should be so taxed. Whether they can be or not depends upon the authority of the master to mate such charges taxable. The master has, under the equity rules, very large discretion about the production of testimony and the order of examination of witnesses and of procedure before him, but these charges are not made taxable fees or costs by either the statutes or rules, and the question is whether the master can make such charges taxable when the law has not made them so. The court cannot employ a stenographer at the expense of the government, neither could it at the expense of parties without their consent, nor allow one to do so at the expense of another, by requiring the expense to be treated as taxiable costs. The authority of the master cannot exceed that of the court appointing the master. These charges are left to be borne by the parties according to their contract without being taxed. �While the accounting was pending before the master, the orator procured an order from the master for the taking the depositions of witnesses before a commissioner named at Keoktik, lowa, and caused notice to be given to the defend- ants that the depositions would be taken, under the order, on a day named, at 10 o'clock in the forendon, at that place. ��� �
