sraoncrv. murmn. sums. 19
Hence the proceeding by-complaint before commissioners.T But I Bud
no feeallowed. for a. complaint by either of the sectionsof the statutes
referred 'to. Thereis none provided for in terms in section 847, which
prescribes commissionersfees; and there is no like service performed by
clerks of the United {States courts, and for which they receive compen-
sation. Such clerks have no authorityto receive complaints of this
character, or in any 'manner to institute or to take cognizance of criminal
prosecutions. My opinion is that the petitioner. isrnot entitled to a fee
for the complaint itnany case. But the complaintis sworn to before the ,
commissionergrand -is· Bled by him, and the statute provides a fee for
him for administering and oath, and for Bling everypaper in a cause. I
therefore hold that theipetitioner, while not entitled to a fee for the com-
plaint, is entitled to a fee .f01' administering the oath to every complaint
made beforehim, andfor Bling the same. But it is urged in argument
that if there 'is no fee allowed for the complainteo namine, the commis-
sioner is required to examine thecomplainant, and to reduce his testi-
mony to writing, and thatthis then becomes ·a deposition, for which the
commissioner is entitledito bc. paidat the rate of 20 cents a folio, under
section 847, Rev. St. In the Brst place, it will be noted that the peti-
tionerdoes not claim in` his account or in his petition any compensation
for taking depositions; It is apparent, then, that the claim now set up
for -this compensation is an after-thought. However, if I should agree
with counsel in the suggestion that the petitioner was entitled to com- A
peusation for taking depositions in these criminal proceedings, I would
allow an amendment of thetpetitioneto cover this claim. » _
  Section.1014, Rev. St., in conferring criminal jurisdiction upon com-
missioners, declares that proceedings before themshall be agreeable "to
the usualmode of process?’¤in the state where they are appointed. In
this state it is the duty of a committing magistrateto reduce to writing
the testimony of witnesses examined before him on preliminary exam-
ination, zbut if the neglect the duty, the examination is nevertheless legal
and ·valid,and—·the testimony given may he-proved by any witness who
heard and remembers it; substantially. Harris v. State, 73 Ala..495.
The examination reduced totwriting by the commissioners is not a depo-
sition in contemplation of section 847,·Rev. St., which prescribes a fee
for taking andcertifying depositions to. file. Adeposition is the testi-
mony of a. witness, reduced to writing, and signed as given under oath
before a commissioner, examiner, or other judicial oiiicer, in answer to
interrogatories and crossdnterrogatories, to be Bled and read as evidence
on the trialof a case pending in court. · Burrill,,Law Diet.; 1 Bouv.
Law Dict. 408; C'mu:h v. State, 63rAla. 163; Rev. St. §§ 863, 866, 867,
provide for the taking of depositions, and- name, among other officers,
commissioners and clerks of thecourts, as authorized to take and certify
them,~toBle in court. And ·secti0ns 828 and 847 prescribe the compensa-
tion for this service. y Rut in Iron Factory v.;Cbming,7 Blatchf.16, in 1869;
·it was heldiby Mr; Justice Nmnsou that the word "deposition,2’ in the act
of 1853, didnot include oral testimony taken in court or before a master,
and applied only to adeposition given in evidence on the trial*of a case