M. T. 1866. KIERNAN v. BRERETON and others.* ACTION for work and labour, and on money counts. The particulars claimed £233. 3s. 11d., as the amount of three several bills of costs of plaintiff, as attorney and solicitor for Robert Laurence Brereton, William Watson Brereton, and Caroline Catherine Brereton. Robert Laurence Brereton pleaded separately. William Watson Brereton and Caroline C. Brereton pleaded together. Sixth plea to count for work and labour, that no such bill as required by statute 12 & 13 Vic., c. 53, was delivered by plaintiff to defendants W. W. Brereton and C. C. Brereton. The case was tried before Mr. Baron DEASY, in the Consolidated Nisi Prius Court, in Trinity Term. of At the trial, a joint retainer of the plaintiff by all the defendants was proved for certain portions of the bills of costs; that R. L. Brereton acted for the other two defendants, who resided out the jurisdiction, under a power of attorney from them; and that R. L. Brereton was personally served with the three bills of costs. The bills of costs were referred to as bills Nos. 1, 2, and 3. No. 1 was a bill of Chancery costs; it was entitled in margin Nov. 26, 27. A bill of costs, in order to comply with the statute 12 and 13 Vic., c. 53, s. 2, must clearly point out on the face of it, or by some writing connected with it, the party or parties to be charged. K., an at was torney, Estates Court, costs, was en- "Henry Wray Brereton, William Watson Brereton, Robert Lau- ous 66 costs of rected to R. Landed Es rence Brereton, plaintiffs; Felthern Watson, defendant; William R.," and di"Watson Brereton, Robert Laurence Brereton, Caroline Catherine The other, of "Brereton, petitioners; Carroll Watson and, by suggestion, Thomas tates Court "Sadleir, respondents;" and was headed "In Chancery: Miscel- titled in the "laneous costs in these causes between solicitor and client." The bill was signed "Francis Kiernan, 19 Westmoreland-street;" costs, was en matters, and dorsed "Costs citor and client," and directed to R. There were some items in the bill of Chancery costs with which R alone was chargeable. Held, that the bill of Chancery costs was insufficient to charge W. and C. * Coram FITZGerald, HUGHES, and DEASY, BB. M. T. 1866. and endorsed "Brereton v. Watson. Copy of miscellaneous costs KIERNAN ย. Bill No. 2 was entitled in margin "Carroll Watson plaintiff; Thomas Nugent defendant;" and was headed "Common Pleas : Plaintiff's costs between solicitor and client," and was endorsed "Watson v. Nugent. Copy costs between solicitor and client." "Robert Laurence Brereton, Esq., No. 27 Summer-hill." Bill No. 3 was of costs in Landed Estates Court, headed "Costs of "Robert L. Brereton, William Watson Brereton, and Caroline C. "Brereton," and directed to Robert L. Brereton. At the close of plaintiff's case, Counsel for the defendants W. W. Brereton and C. C. Brereton called on the Judge to direct a verdict for these two defendants upon so much of the six pleas as related to bills Nos. 1 and 2, on the grounds that they did not show that W. W. Brereton and C. C. Brereton were chargeable or intended to be charged by them. Mr. Baron DEASY directed a verdict for defendants as to bill No. 2, but ruled in favour of plaintiff as to bill No. 1, reserving leave to defendants W. W. Brereton and C. C. Brereton to move to have a verdict entered for them upon the sixth plea, as far as it related to bill No. 1, and to reduce the verdict against them by the amount of bill No. 1. Palles, in this Term, obtained a conditional order pursuant to leave reserved. C. Shaw, and E. F. Litton, now showed cause. The defendants have notice that they were the parties to be charged: Warren v. Cunningham (a). Refers to statute 12 & 13 Vic., c. 25, s. 2, and cites Frowd v. Stillard (b); Brooks v. Mason (c); Holmes v. Magrath (d). This is a demand against the three defendants jointly: Finchett v. How (e). W. W. Brereton (b) 4 C. & P. 51. (a) Gow. N. P. 71. (c) 1 H. Bl. 290. (d) 5 Ir. Law Rep. 376. (e) 2 Camp. 275. M. T. 1866. KIERNAN v. and C. C. Brereton gave a power of attorney to R. L. Brereton to act for them. All the statute requires is that the attorney should deliver a signed bill of costs. The Act ought not to be construed strictly against the attorney.-[HUGHES, B. Was not the object BRERETON. of the Act to protect a client who did not know law?]-Lucas v. Roberts (a) shows that an envelope is as good as a heading: Champ v. Stokes (b); Daubney v. Phipps (c); Manning v. Glynn (d); Gridley v. Austen (e). Palles, and Bewley, in support of the rule. The question is, is there enough on the face of the bill to show that W. W. Brereton and C. C. Brereton are to be charged by it. It rather shows that R. L. Brereton is the only person to be charged. It is not enough that defendant should be a person chargeable by a bill; he must be the person charged by the bill. Daubney v. Phipps (f) and Champ v. Stokes (g) do not touch this case. The cases show that delivery of the bill to the person to be charged is not sufficient to charge him: Manning v. Glynn (h). C. C. Brereton could never have imagined, on reading the title and heading of this bill, that she was to be charged with it, as she was no party to the cause. FITZGERALD, B. I have no doubt in this case. The statute clearly requires a distinct intention to charge the defendants either to appear upon the bill itself or by some writing to be connected with it. There is no apparent intention in this bill to charge William Watson Brereton or Caroline Catherine Brereton. We must order the verdict to be reduced, and the conditional order made absolute, and, of course, with costs. HUGHES and DEASY, BB., concurred. (a) 11 Exch. 41. (c) 16 Q. B.507, 514. (e) 16 Q. B. 504. (9) 6 H. & N. 683. Conditional order made absolute. (b) 6 H. & N. 683. (d) 1 Jones, 513. (f) 16 Q. B, 507, 514. (h) 1 Jones, 513. M. T. 1865. Crim. Cases. Nov. 18. H. T. 1866. Certain Acts of Parliament COURT FOR CRIMINAL CASES RESERVED.* THE QUEEN v. ROBERT WALLACE. THE QUEEN v. SCOTT. THE QUEEN v. TEEVAN. THE QUEEN v. COX. THESE were five cases reserved by Mr. Baron FITZGERALD, all on made copies of the same point. In the first of them the following case was stated The Dublin Gazette, "pur- by the learned Baron :— porting to be printed and published by The prisoner was tried before me at the last Summer Assizes the Queen's au- for the county of Antrim, on an indictment charging that he, on thority," conclusive evi- the 15th of July 1865, at Belfast, within the proclaimed district dence in certain cases of Shankhill, unlawfully did carry and have a pistol, an ounce of gunpowder, and certain ammunition, to wit, &c. under those Acts. On the trial of the pri soner, a copy The indictment was founded on the 11 Vic., c. 2, s. 9. The of The Dublin first section of that Act enacts:-" That whenever, in the judgment Gazette was given in evi- "of the Lord Lieutenant, or other Chief Governor or Governors dence. It pur ported to be "of Ireland, by and with the advice of the Privy Council of Ireprinted and published at "land, it shall be necessary for the prevention of crime and outrage The Dublin No. 87 A. street, by A. Gazette office, "that this Act should apply to any county, county of a city, or "county of a town, or any barony or baronies, half-barony or half"baronies, in any county at large, or any district of less extent under the title, << than any barony or half-barony in Ireland, it shall be lawful, T., of, &c. It also contained, the words, "published by "to and for the Lord Lieutenant, or other Chief Governor or authority." Held, that "Governors of Ireland, by and with the advice of the Privy the document not evidence in question was "Council of Ireland, to declare by proclamation, to be published "in the Dublin Gazette, that, from and after a day to be named "in such proclamation, this Act shall apply to any county, county within the Acts of Parliament, and the conviction was accordingly er roneous. * Coram MONAHAN, C. J., PIGOT, C. B., KEOGH, CHRISTIAN, O'BRIEN, and HAYES, JJ., FITZGERALD, HUGHES, and DEASY, BB., and O'HAGAN. J. Crim. Cases "of a city, or county of a town, or county at large, or any barony M. T. 1856. "or baronies, half-barony or half-baronies, in any county at large, "or any district of less extent than any barony or half-barony in "Ireland." The 9th section enacts :-"That, from and after the day named "in any such first-mentioned proclamation, and thenceforth during "all the time for which any such proclamation shall be in force, "it shall not be lawful for any person whomsoever (with certain "exceptions not applying to the prisoner) to carry or have within "the district specified in any such proclamation, elsewhere than "in his or her own dwelling-house, any gun, pistol, or other "fire-arm, or any part or parts of any gun, pistol, or other fire"arm, or any sword, cutlass, pike, or bayonet, or any bullets, "gunpowder, or ammunition; and every person carrying or having "any gun, pistol, or other fire-arm, or any part or parts of any "gun, pistol, or other fire-arm, or any sword, cutlass, pike, or "bayonet, or any bullets, gunpowder, or ammunition, contrary to "the provisions of this Act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, "and shall be liable, on conviction, to the punishment therein "mentioned." The 21st section enacts: "That the production of 'The Dublin "Gazette,' purporting to be printed by the Queen's printers, con"taining the publication of any proclamation, warrant, or notice, "under this Act, shall be deemed and taken to be conclusive "evidence in all Courts of Justice in Ireland of all such facts "and circumstances as were or shall be necessary to authorise the "issuing of any such proclamation, warrant, order, or notice; and "every such proclamation, warrant, order, and notice, shall be "deemed and taken in all such Courts respectively, to all intents "and purposes whatsoever, to have been issued in conformity with "this Act." The Act of 11 Vic., which was originally in force only until the 31st of December 1849, and from thence until the end of the then next session of Parliament, was continued, with certain amendments, by several subsequent Acts, of which it is material only to mention the 19 & 20 Vic., c. 36, called the "Peace Preservation THE QUEEN บ. WALLACE. |