« EelmineJätka »
Law of Attorneys and Solicitors. ing it was, to take so hostile a step as to tax can be more vague or unsatisfactory than the the bill of costs of the mortgagee's solicitor. It affidavits on the subject of the instructions is true, that the bill of costs and the items said to have been given to Mr. Barrow to take themselves are inconsiderable in amount, but these proceedings. The time specified is init is of the greatest importance, that this mediately after the 30th of October, 1852. Mr. Court should protect a client from costs wan- Barrow says, that he did it ' at once, in contonly and wholly unnecessarily incurred. sequence of Abram having distrained. Yo
“I have already stated, that in my opinion, interview with Mr. Pendleton is mentioned the expression used in these cases of items previously, nor does the expression in Mr. being fraudulent' is vague; and it is un- Barrow's affidavit allege or imply, that he took doubtedly difficult to define accurately the such instruction from Mr. Pendleton. The costs which should come within the descrip- bill of costs does not contain one entry of attion of those which should be sufficient to in- tendance upon the mortgagee for this purpose, duce this Court to tax a bill after payment. and the words of Mr. Pendleton's affidavit are
“In the ordinary sense of the words, these not that he directed such proceedings to be items may not be fraudulent, but I understand taken, but that they were taken with his "knowthe expressions and judgments of Lord Lang- ledge and authority, The words are these : dale in the reported cases to mean this :—that ' Abram was again behind with his interest in if business be transacted bona fide, with a view June, 1852, and as I did not feel satisfied to alto benefit his client, the items detailing it can- low the interest to accumulate, my solicitor, by not be considered fraudulent, even though my wish, took steps to obtain the same, at first, they be overcharged in the bill of costs, but principally by writing to and calling upon the that if it appear that the bill of costs, or a said Henry Abram, but without success; afterlarge portion of it, is for business which, in the wards, by serving the tenant, Mr. Bentham, exercise of an honest and fair discretion, ought with notice to pay his rent to an agent on my never to be transacted at all, then, that such behalf, and as the interest was still not paid, items come within the class of items which will and no rent forthcoming from the tenant, by induce this Court to tax a bill, even though finally distraining on Abram, in respect of the there was no serious amount of pressure at the house occupied by him; and again, on the time when the bill was paid.
next half-year's interest becoming due, it was “It is urged, no doubt correctly, that I must necessary to proceed to make another distress, look at this bill, not as a bill between Mr. but which was not accomplished, and also Barrow and the mortgagor, but as a bill be- pending the before-mentioned events and protween Mr. Barrow and his own client, Mr. ceedings, it became necessary, owing to the Pendleton, the mortgagee, and further, that it opposition of Abram to my authority as mortappears by the evidence that the mortgagee gagee, by enforcing rent from the tenant after expressly sanctioned and directed Mr. Barrow he had paid the same, or was liable to do so to take this step, and to incur those costs; to myself, to institute proceedings against the and then, it is contended, that although this said 'Henry Abram in the Court of Chancery, might be an item to be disallowed, in taking for the protection and enforcement of my rights the account between the mortgagor and mort- as mortgagee.' He proceeds to say, that all gagee, still as between the mortgagee and Mr. the acts and proceedings of his solicitor were Barrow, he is liable to pay this amount to Mr. taken .not only of my general authority and Barrow, and that therefore the mortgagor must retainer, but also with my special knowledge be so liable in this proceeding:
and authority on the occasions, and for my Admitting the premises, I differ with the interest and safety; the receipt of the rent and conclusion. In the observations I have made, distresses, in consequence of his refusal to pay I have treated and considered the bill in this the interest, and the proceedings or bill in light, viz., whether Mr. Barrow could compel Chancery, in consequence of Abram's opposiMr. Pendleton, his client, to pay it, upon the tion to the reasonable exercise of my powers assumption that he, from any circumstances, and authority as mortgagee.' such as the insufficiency of the property, had “The person who makes this affidavit seems been unable to obtain the amount due to him to be a tradesman residing at Prescot, who from the mortgagor. I am of opinion that the acted throughout under the advice of his somortgagee, Mr. Pendleton, could not have licitor, and only as he directed. been so compelled. I concur with the decision “The question is, whether payment ought, In re Clark, 1 De G., M‘N. & G. 43, and I am in these circumstances, to preclude the taxof opinion that in taxing bills of costs, these ation of this bill? No doubt payment is a costs of proceedings, which it is impossible most material ingredient in these cases. This that the client could have directed his solicitor Court is always reluctant to open a matter deto take, if he had received proper advice from liberately settled between the parties to the his solicitor, ought to be disallowed. I con- transaction. Payment assumes, that the matsider, therefore, here, whether Mr. Pendleton ter is settled between the parties, and the could, if Mr. Barrow had properly instructed solicitor, so treating it, naturally takes less and advised him as to his position, have di- care of his vouchers and evidence; although rected such proceedings to have been taken, no particular inconvenience can be alleged by and I am of opinion that he could not. Mr. Barrow in this case, inasmuch as he was
“But the case does not rest here ; nothing informed, immediately after the settlement, that
Common Law Practice.-- Applications for admission and Renewal of Certificates. 223 the bill would be taxed, and the petition for POINTS IN COMMON LAW that purpose was presented in the course of a
PRACTICE. few weeks after the transaction occurred. If the Court were to refuse taxation in such a
MOTION TO SET ASIDE NONSUIT. case as the present, it appears to me that it would put a mortgagor entirely at the mercy
Per Cresswell, J. :—"If the Judge tells the of the solicitor of his mortgagee. In this case, plaintiff's counsel that he will nonsuit him on for instance, what course could the mortgagor a point of law, the latter does not by mere achave adopted ? If he had adopted the offer of quiescence lose his right to move; but if the Mr. Barrow and paid the principal and interest Judge says he will nonsuit the plaintiff bewithout getting the title-deeds, he might have been put to expensive proceedings before they cause there is no evidence to leave to the jury, could have been recovered. If he had adopted that is a very different case; counsel, if they the course he took in October, 1852, and ap- mean to object, should insist upon going to plied for an order to tax Mr. Barrow's bill, the the jury, or they cannot afterwards complain. same course might have been repeated, and a fresh bill of costs brought in again at the end
In strictness, no doubt, the Judge of six further months, together with the un. has no right to nonsuit the plaintiff, where avoidable imputation, that, in truth, his money there are several issues. But, unless the was not ready, and that he was adopting these counsel insist on the issues going to the jury, steps for the purpose of delay. “I certainly have shown no disposition to
if the circumstances are such that the Judge open a settled account, or to refer to taxation ought, as matter of law, to have directed a the bill of a solicitor once paid. I have thought verdict for the defendant, the nonsuit, though that the doctrine of pressure ought not to be in invitum, ought to stand.” Hughes v. Great extended, and that, without it, mere charges, even though gross, which the client
Western Railway Company, 14 Com. B. 637. might have detected before payment, should noť induce the Court to take this course, and, above all, I have considered, that it is incumbent on the petitioner to come speedily; but
A summons was taken out before Alderson, when I find a bill containing a series of items B., at Chambers, for an order allowing the which, in my opinion, are not mere over- plaintiff his costs, on the ground that it was a charges, but charges for a whole class of busi- case in which the Superior Court had concurness which ought never to have been done at all, the case appears to me to fall within the rent jurisdiction—as the plaintiff and the deprinciple laid down by Lord Langdale, when fendant dwelt more than 20 miles apart, but the he said, that the nature of the items might be Judge, on the facts, refused to make the order. such as to require this Court to direct the tax. Upon a like application to the Court, held that ation of the bill.
“I shall, therefore, in this case, make the affidavits in addition to those read at Chamusual order for taxation.” In re Barrow, 17
be used. Sanderson v. Proctor, 10 Beav. 547.
Exch. R. 189.
ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVITS ON APPEAL FROM
COUNTY COURT JUDGE.
RENEWED NOTICES OF ADMISSION
For Hilary Term, 1855.
To whom Articled, Assigned &c.
Clerks' Names and Addresses. Parsons, Charles William, Store Street, Bed
ford Square; and Alfred Place Gregory, Charles, Hampstead; and Egham Rudyard, Frederick Colville, Macclesfield Rhodes, Arthur, Muswell Hill
F. J. Jessopp, Derby
APPLICATION FOR RE-ADMISSION. Gabb, Baker John, 6, Edgeware Road
Newby, C. J., 27, Northumberland Place,
Westbourne Grove; and Newport
APPLICATIONS TO A JUDGE AT CHAMKensit, Henry, 37, Inverness Terrace; Bays- BERS TO TAKE OUT OR RENEW water; and Hyde Park Gate, South.
CERTIFICATES. APPLICATIONS TO THE COURT TO
On the 1st day of February, 1855.
Allen, George, 27, John Street, Southwark
Cotton, Henry Morten, 41, Woburn Place
224 Admission and Renewal of Certificates.-Superior Courts : Lord Chancellor. Courtenay, Richard, Lewisham
Moore, H., Shelsley Beauchamp; Plymouth; Cox, William, Daventry,
Guernsey; Cherbourg; and Boulogne Crickmore, Willam, Scole
Olive, Joseph, Twyford Buildings, Lincoln's
Phelps, Isaac, South Brent
Remington, Reginald, Rochdale
Roberts, Richard, of Langefni, Anglesea; Durant, Benjamin Chandler, 14, Belgrave and Cape Town, Cape of Good Hope. Street; Poole
Sanderson, William Barker, Leeds Gooday, John Francis, Sudbury
Sawkins, George, 3, Manor Terrace, North Greatwood, Robert, Birmingham
Chelsea; Stanley St.; and Charlwood St. Griffith, Thos. Aubrie, 15, Philpot Lane, City Stanley, C., 5, Millman Street, Bedford Row;
Hallett, Frederick Hughes, Ashford ; and and London and Middlesex Debtors' Prison Canterbury
Stutely, Henry Octavius, 3, Bowater Place, Harding, James Nott, Amwell Street, Pen- Blackheath ; and Chancery Lane tonville ; and Exeter
Vyner, Charles James, Nantwich Ionn, William, 44, Upper Winchester Street, Walker, George, Spilsby Islington.
Walker, George H., Newbold Grange, Rug. Julius, Herbert A. H., Paul's Road, Cam- by; Bombay; and the High Seas den Town; Warwick Court
Williams, Thomas Caredig, 47, Queen's Rd., Kingdon, Joseph Francis, Barnstaple Notting Hill Lane, Theophilus, Hereford
Whytehead, John, Kirby Moorside Lee, Edw. Alphonso, Kingston-upon-Hull Windsor, O. Richard, 25, Baker Street, Milner, Christian Splidt, 17, Lincoln's Inn Lloyd Square Fields.
Wright, Egerton Leigh, Wigan.
RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS.
INFANT OUT OF FUND
contempt. It was a fallacy to treat the motion Thornhill v. Thornhill. Jan. 11, 1855. for an injunction as a separate proceeding, as COSTS ON CONTEMPT BY INDUCING MAR
it was only a step in the relief sought from the
Court. The costs of the affidavits on the RIAGE OF WARD OF COURT. INJUNCTION,
motion for an injunction come therefore withThe guardians of a ward of Court had ob- costs of the contempt, and the report of the
in the scope of the order for payment of the tained an injunction to restrain C. from Master in that respect must be reviewed. As inducing her to contract a marriage with to the other items disallowed, the Master was him, and afterwards he was committed for right. the contempt. Upon his release on an undertaking to pay the costs occasioned by his contempt, held that the costs of the
In re Hodges. Jan. 1:2, 13, 1855. motion for an injunction were included in MAINTENANCE OF such costs.
PAID IN UNDER TRUSTEES' RELIEF ACT. This was an application for a direction to
Held, that a Judge at Chambers has not ju. the Taxing Master. It appeared that an in
risdiction under the 15 f. 16 Vict: c. 80, s. junction had been obtained to restrain Mr. 26, to make orders as to the maintenance of Chichester from inducing a ward of Court to an infant out of a fund which has been paid contract a marriage with him, and that after
into Court, under the 10 & 1 Vict. c. 96, wards he had been committed for contempt,
without a petition being presented. but was subsequently released on expressing This was an application, by direction of his contrition and on an undertaking to pay Vice-Chancellor Wood, on the question whether the taxed costs occasioned by his contempt an allowance for the maintenance of an infant, forthwith. The Master, upon the taxation, had out of a fund which had been paid into Court
. disallowed the costs of the affidavits on which under the Trustees' Relief Act, 10 & 11 Vict. the injunction was obtained as not falling with. c. 96, could be continued without a petition in the costs of the contempt, and also the costs being presented. of serving Lady Ferrers, and of Miss Thorn- By the 15 & 16 Vict. C. 80, s. 26, it is eshill's journey to London to see the Lord Chan- acted, that “the business to be disposed of by cellor.
the Master of the Rolls and Vice-Chancellors Baily and Renshaw for the guardians; Cairns respectively, while sitting at. Chambers, shall and Rowcliffe for Mr. Chichester.
consist of such of the following matters as the The Lord Chancellor said, the charge against Judge shall from time to time think may be Mr. Chichester was, of having endeavoured more conveniently disposed of in Chambers clandestinely to remove MissThonrhill from the than in open Court, vizi," applications as to custody of her guardians with the view to a the guardianship and maintenance of infants." private marriage, and motions had been made Turner and Roupell, jun., for the several to restrain such removal, and to commit for parties.
Cur. ad. cult.
EXPIRATION OF THREE WEEKS.
Superior Courts : Lords Justices.-V. C. Kindersley.-V. C. Stuart.-V. C. Wood. 225 The Lord Chancellor said, that the jurisdic. This petition was presented for the payment tion in such cases arose under the Trustees' to the perpetual curate of Bruton, of the Relief Act, which expressly provided that the dividends on 1541., the purchase-money of proceedings should be by petition. The Mas- certain glebe lands taken by the Great Western ters in Chancery Abolition Act only gave ju. Railway Company. risdiction to do at Chambers that which had Messiter in support. been formerly done by the Court, but there Osborne for the company, contrà, as to costs, must be the same foundation for such orders at referring to the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, s. 71, which Chambers as in Court, and that in cases like enacts, that "if such purchase-money or comthe present was by petition.
pensation shall not amount to the sum of 2001.,
and shall exceed the sum of 201., the same Lords Justices.
shall either be paid into the bank, and applied In re Cameron's Coalbrook Steam Coal and
in manner hereinbefore-directed, with respect Swansea and Loughor Railway Campany, ex- the same may lawfully be paid to two trustees,
to sums amounting to or exceeding 2001., or parte Green. Jan. 13, 1855.
to be nominated by the parties entitled to the APPEAL UNDER WINDING-UP ACT AFTER rents or profits of the lands, in respect where
of the same shall be payable, such nominations An application was dismissed, with costs, for to be signified by writing, under the hand of
leave to appeal from the decision of the the party so entitled."
Vice-Chancellor Stuart. This was an application for leave to appeal Beavan v. Earl of Oxford. Jan. 15, 1855. from the decision of the Master of the Rolls in this case, notwithstanding the expiration of REGISTRATION OF JUDGMENT Under 1 & 2
Vict. c. 110.-SUFFICIENCY AS AGAINST more than three weeks, limited by the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 108, s. 33.'
SUBSEQUENT INCUMBRANCER. Prendergast in support, on the ground that In a writ of summons the defendant's name the decision on which the Master of the Rolls was set out as Lord Edward H., and the had proceeded had been questioned in a recent appearance was entered as Lord Alfred H., case by the Lords Justices.
and a Judge's order to enter up judgment Roxburgh contrà.
was drawn up in the name of Lord Edward The Lords Justices said, that the words of H. and was so registered. It was, howthe Statute were positive, and the application ever, afterwards registered as against Lord must be dismissed, with costs.
Alfred H., sued as Edward Lord H: Held,
sufficient under the 18 2 Viet. c. 110, as Vice-Chancellor Kindersley.
against subsequent incumbrancers. Exparte Perpetual Curate of Bruton. Jan. 12, A WRIT of summons was issued in Novem. 1855.
ber, 1839, against Lord Edward Harley and
was duly served. The appearance was entered RAILWAY
as Lord Alfred Harley, and a Judge's order to OF GLEBE LANDS, WHERE UNDER 2001.-
enter up judgment was afterwards given, under COSTS.
which it was entered up as against Lord Edward Certain glebe lands were taken by a rail- Harley, and was registered in that name in Fem
way company, and the purchase-money, bruary, 1840. It was, however, afterwards re.
Bevir for the plaintiff'; Kemplay for the judg-
tion was sufficient notice to the subsequent ine Which enacts, that “no notice of motion cumbrancers of the judgment, and was therea for a rehearing before the Lord Chancellor of fore valid under the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110. Great Britain or Ireland respectively of any order of the Master of the Rolls in England or
Boyse v. Colclough. Jan. 13, 1855. be given after the expiration of three weeks STAYING TRIAL OF ISSUE AS TO VALIDITY after the order complained of shall have been made."
OP WILL PENDING APPEAL FROM IRISH
Superior Courts: V. C. Wood.- Queen's Bench. A motion was refused to stay the trial of an
Court of Queen's Bench. issue as to the validity of a will, relating Regina (on prosecution of Rector of St. James, to English and Irish estates, until the decision of the House of Lords on an appeal
Westminster) v. de la Beche. Jan. 13, 1855. from the Irish Court, as to the Irish LIABILITY
estates. This was a motion to stay the trial of the
Held, on special case, that the Museum of Pracissue directed in this suit, as to the validity of
tical Geology, which was built on a portion a will relating to English and Irish estates.
of the Crown lands at the public expense, It appeared that an appeal was pending from
and kept in repair by the Commissioners of the decision of the Irish Court as to the va.
Public Works, and the expenses defrayed lidity of the will, and it was now sought to
by the Lords of the Treasury out of an stay the trial pending the appeal.
annual Parliamentary vote, is not liable to J. V. Prior in support; Rolt and Cairns,
be rated to the poor under the 43 Eliz. c. contrà.
2, notwithstanding the students paid 201. The Vice-Chancellor said, that the question on entrance and 201. a year, and the prowas for the discretion of the Court: Nerot v.
fessors who delivered lectures were allowed Burnand, 2 Russ. 56; Suisse v. Lord Lowther,
to receive a portion of such sum. 2 Hare, 439. The parties might desire the trial of the issue before the argument of the appeal,
This was a special case as to the liability of as the decision of the jury might be influenced the Museum of Practical Geology, in Jermyn by the judgment of the House of Lords. It was
Street, Piccadilly, to be rated to the poor under besides desirable that no delay should inter- the 43 Eliz. c. 2. It appeared that the building vene, as the parties might be put to much was erected at the public expense by a parliainconvenience by the death of any of the wit- mentary grant on land which formed a portion of
The motion would therefore be re. the hereditary domains of the Crown, and that fused.
it was kept in repair by the Commissioners of Public Works, and the expenses defrayed by
the Lords of the Treasury out of funds annually Exparte Governors of Hawkins' Hospital, Chat- voted by Parliament. The museum containe ham. Jan. 13, 1855.
models of machinery for working mines and
specimens of rocks, ores, and minerals, and OF PURCHASE- lectures were delivered by professors, who re
ceived, besides the sum paid them by the TreaUpon lands belonging to a hospital being sury, a portion of the fees paid by students, taken by a dock and railway company
and which were 201. on admission and 20l, a the purchase-money, amounting to 4401.,
Pashley and Keane in support of the rate; tition for the investment of the same in consols in the names of the governors, ind
The Court said, that as the property was in for the dividends to be paid them as on their the exclusive occupation of the Crown for other stock,
public purposes, it was not liable to be rated,
Her Majesty was seised in fee simple, and alThis was a petition for the investment by though the Commissioners were entitled under the Accountant-General in consols, in the the
& 9 Vict. c. 104, to take and use the names of the governors of this hospital for the property, it was not for the purpose of occuparelief of aged or decayed seamen, of a sum of tion, but only to manage. There was only a 4401., the purchase-money of certain lands user_by certain persons with the sanction of taken by the Thames Haven Dock and Rail- the Lords of the Treasury, but no beneficial way Company, and paid into Court. It ap- occupation in any one. In point of fact, there peared that there was a considerable sum was no distinction between this case and that already invested in consols, and it was sought of the British Museum, or Royal Academy, to have this amount added, and the dividends and the appellants were therefore entitled to thereon received together with the rest.
judgment. Speed, in support, referred to the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, s. 73, which enacts, that “all Regina v. the Justices of the East Riding, sums of money exceeding 201., which may be
Yorkshire. Jan, 13, 1855. payable by the promoters of the undertaking in MANDAMUS.-RETIRING PENSION TO CHAPrespect of the taking, using, or interfering with
LAIN OF HOUSE OF CORRECTION. any lands under a contract or agreement with
The chaplain of a house of correction had any person who shall not be entitled to dispose of such lands, or of the interest therein con
resigned and a successor was appointed,
but he afterwards applied for a retiring tracted to be sold by him, absolutely for his own benefit, shall be paid into the bank or to
annuity under the 4 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 32, trustees in manner aforesaid."
on the ground that his resignation was
caused by age or infirmity, and at a sub. The Vice-Chancellor made the order, as sequent sessions a motion was carried for asked.
the same by a majority of 9 to 7 jase
INVESTMENT IN CONSOLS
MONEY OF HOSPITAL LANDS.