Page images

Law of Attorneys and Solicitors.

323 our names, as may be required towards de- dale, it stood over, and a compromise was fraying the expenses of the Rating of Tene- entered into. Since then orders have been ments Bill, for the parish of Saffron Wal- granted as of course in this form, and have den, for which application will be made in not been disputed. the ensuing Parliament, if the same should of the Court to make such an order, I think it

“ With respect to the jurisdiction and power not pass into law.” This was signed for unnecessary to say much. I entertain no doubt sums amounting in the whole to 1441. by of the power, notwithstanding there may have 15 persons, 10 of whom, including Clarke, been some questions and some words in the who signed for 51., were members of the Act which are ambiguous, for the cases at committee. Clark in his affidavit alleged, Common Law have, I think, settled the point that this was communicated to the mayor,

that the Court has jurisdiction. It cannot, who expressed himself satisfied, and said however, be denied, that this form of order is that his sons, W. Thurgood and Richard order compels immediate taxation, and directs

open to great objection and inconvenience. The D. Thurgood, who had been appointed that if one-sixth be taken off, the expenses of solicitors, would go on; but that he (Clarke) taxation are to be borne by the solicitor; but did not consider himself liable for more after this, it may appear on the trial of the than 51.

action, that there was no retainer, and no porUpon the Bill being rejected by the tion of the bill may be due, and all this expense House of Lords, Messrs. Thurgood de- will have been unnceessarily incurred. It is livered their bill of costs, and subsequently ought to have attended to himself, but there

said that this is a matter which the solicitor commenced actions against Clarke and Thomas Smith, both of whom had signed a body of persons has no doubt he is acting

are many cases, in which a solicitor acting for the guarantee. Mr. Clarke defended the for all of them, and his only remedy is by action and afterwards obtained an order of action at law. course to tax the bill, which had been de- “ Another inconvenience may arise from the livered as a bill against him jointly with Taxing Master having to determine the validity other parties.

of retainer, in cases where no directions have The petition stated that Messrs. Thur.

been given by the client to do a particular good had brought an action against the pe- items cannot be allowed; this may involve the

thing, without which the charges for certain titioner, that he disputed his liability, and same question as that determined at law, and had a valid defence to the action, except as the Taxing Master may come to one conclusion to 5l. paid into Court, that he intended to and the jury may arrive at a different result, defend the action, and was not desirous of and yet the costs of taxation depend on this restraining it, but neither the petition nor question. All this shows that to remedy the the order contained any submission to pay matter ought to be brought specially to the

evils and inconvenience on both sides the what should be found due on taxation. On the motion of Messrs. Thurgood to an order suited to the circumstances of the

attention of the Judge, so that he may make discharge or vary the order,

case, by which means, either the taxation here The Master of the Rolls said,

may be postponed until the question at law is “This was an application to discharge an determined, or the whole question of retainer order to tax, obtained in a form which is un- may be referred to the Taxing Master. usual, although not without precedent, under

In this case, I think that I ought to make these circumstances:

the same order as that In re Pyne, 5 Com. B. “The solicitor brought an action against 407. The order should be amended, by insertMr. Clarke for his bill of costs. The client ing therein, that the client shall be at liberty contests both his liability to pay anything, on to question the retainer of Mr. Thurgood, and the ground that he did not employ him as his that Mr. Thurgood be restrained from comsolicitor, and he also disputes the amount of the mencing or prosecuting any action or suit bill

. If the matter proceeds solely at law, al- touching his demand pending the reference, though the question of retainer may be decided, and an undertaking by the client to pay what, yet the question of amount can only be decided if anything, shall be found to be due on such in the most unsatisfactory manner, i.e., not by taxation. The result will be, that I shall send taxation before the proper officer, but either in the whole matter to the Tasing Master. Court or by a reference to take the account.

“I cannot compel the client to take this Mr. Clarke bas obtained this order to enable order, but if he refuses and prefers to try the him, in case he shall fail in the defence to the action, I shall then discharge the order of action, to have the amount of the bill properly course, without costs, as I think that he was ascertained here by the proper officer.

justified in the state of the practice in applying to remedy this inconvenience that Lord Lang- for it. If he takes this order, I shall make the dale settled and approved of an order in this costs of the order abide the result of the taxaform, but he never decided that this was right; tion.” In re Thurgood, 19 Beav. 541. an application to discharge the first order was made, but, on the suggestion of Lord Lang

It was




Law of Costs.-Notes on Recent Statutes.

enacts that 'error may be brought upon a judg

ment upon a special case in the same manner SPECIAL CASE, WHERE

AND as upon a judgment upon a special verdict, JUDGMENT BELOW NEVERSED. unless the parties agree to the contrary (and A SPECIAL case was stated for the opinion they have not done so in this case); and the of the Court, under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76, s. proceedings for bringing a special case before 46, in which the question was, whether the the Court of Error shall, as nearly as may be, plaintiff had any right or title to sell to the be the same as in the case of a special verdict; defendant certain tenant's and trade fixtures. and the Court of Error shall either affirm the On the hearing in Michaelmas Term, 1954, the judgment,' -and there is not,-'or shall reCourt differed in opinion, but the majority was verse the judgment,'—but it is,-'or give the of opinion that the plaintiff svas entitled to sell same judgment as ought to have been given in the trade but not the tenant's fixtures, and the Court in which it was originally decided.' judgment was given for the plaintiff for the In this case, unless there is some record to the value of the former, and for the defendant as contrary, it must be presumed that the Court to the latter (reported 10 Exch. 496). No of Error has given the same judgment as agreement having been entered into as to the ought to have been given by this Court, and costs, the Court on a subsequent application the rule may, therefore, be absolute; but, of held, that the plaintiff was entitled to the ge- course, the Master will tax the costs according neral costs of the cause, subject to the deduc- to the judgment of the Court of Error, for we tion of any costs iccurred by the defendant in have no power over them.” Elliott v. Bishop, respect of the part of the case on which he 11 Exch. 321. succeeded (reported 10 Exch. 522). The Master taxed the defendant's costs at 11l. odd, NOTES ON RECENT STATUTES. which he deducted from the plaintiff's costs,

COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACT, 1854. amounting to 45l., and gave an allocatur for the difference, which was indorsed on the judg-| AFFIDAVIT OF MERITS FOR INTERROGAment roll as the plaintiff's costs in the cause.

TORIES IN EJECTMENT. The defendant afterwards brought error, when

Held, that the affidavit in support of an the Exchequer Chamber not only affirmed the application by a plaintiff for leave to deliver judgment for the plaintiff as to the trade fix- interrogatories to the defendant under the 17 tures, but also adjudged him entitled to the & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 52, must show that he tenant's fixtures (reported 11 Exch. 113), but has a good cause of action upon the merits. made no mention of costs.

Therefore, in an action of ejectment, by Upon a rule nisi obtained on a reference of reason of the forfeiture of a lease by the the parties to the Court by Platt, B., at Cham- breach of the covenant to insure, an affidavit bers, for the allowance of the plaintiff's, and which merely stated that the plaintiff believe disallowance of the defendant's costs, Parke, ed there was a good cause of action for the B., said:

breach of covenant above mentioned, was held “The question now is, whether the costs insufficient, inasmuch as by a waiver of the ought to be taxed, by the Master of this Court, forfeiture the plaintiff's right to maintain the for the plaintiff on that part of the claim on action would be gone. May v. Hawkins, 11 which he failed in the Court below. We are Exch. 210. of opinion that this Court has no power over the subject-matter, and that it ought to be de

RIGHT OF COUNSEL TO SUM UP EVIDENCE. termined by the Court of Error. By the rule of the Common Law, when error was brought tin, BB., dissentiente Platt, B.), that the right

Held (per Pollock, L.C.B., Parke and Mar. by the defendant below, the Court of Error, in ordinary cases, could only reverse the judg- dence at the trial, under the 17 & 18 Vict. c.

of the party who begins, to sum up the eviment simpliciter ; but on a special verdict,

125, s. 18, is confined to the case where the they might give such judgment as the Court below ought to have given. The 32nd section the jury. Hodges v. Ancrum and another, 11

Judge holds that there is evidence to go to of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, Exch. 214. which for the first time makes a special case the subject of appeal to a Court of Error,

Annual Report of the Manchester Law Association.

325 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MAN- | be expected that the attention of the LegislaCHESTER LAW ASSOCIATION.

ture will be directed to the subject, and that, in the ensuing Session of Parliament, material

alterations will be made in the present Act, and The following Report was read at the 17th in the Law of Partnership generally. Annual Meeting of the Manchester Law Asso

“ Your Committee having received a com. ciation, held on the 9th ult. in the Association's Manchester District Court of Bankruptcy,

munication from one of the registrars of the Board Room, Norfolk Street :

calling their attention to the case of a mes“The Committee of the Manchester Law senger of that Court, who was accused of Association, in presenting the 17th Annual malpractice in his office, considered it their Report to the members, have much pleasure duty to watch the proceedings on the investiin stating that the financial condition of the gation of those charges, which terminated in Association is most satisfactory. Twelve new the suspension of the messenger from his office. members have been elected during the year, from the same registrar respecting the fees of

Your Committee also received communications whilst only two members have retired.

"The subject of the war has so fully occu- the messengers in the Bankruptcy Courts, but pied the attention of Parliament, that the past they were not in possession of sufficient inyear has been less fruitful of changes in the formation to enable them to propose an altered law' than the preceding.

scale. They, however, cannot forbear the exYour Committee report the withdrawal of pression of an opinion, that the charges and the Testamentary Jurisdictions Bill, to which fees of messengers and other officers of the (following the course pursued by their prede-Courts of Bankruptcy have, from their magnicessors in office) they gave their most strenu- tude, tended materially to diminish the busi. ous support. The importance of the change ness of those Courts. contemplated by this Bill, both to the Profes

“ Your Committee have been called upon by sion and to the Public, has been fully pointed members of the Association to give their opiout in former Reports, and your Committee nion on various points of practice, the partihope that the time is not far distant when a culars of which are appended to this Report. complete reform will have been effected in this Your Committee have to allude to several branch of the law.

matters which may be expected to occupy the “Two Bills were introduced into Parliament attention of the Profession during the coming for the alteration of the Law relating to Bills year. They would first advert to the remuneof Exchange, one by Mr. Keating, and the ration of solicitors in proceedings in Chancery, other by Lord Brougham. Deeming the pro- and in their general professional business. It visions of both to be calculated to give undue has been the cause of frequent complaint that advantage to the holders of bills of exchange, by the general orders of October, 1852 (upon your Committee submitted a series of observa- which neither solicitors nor taxing masters tions on them to the local members, to the were consulted), and by reason of the changes Law Officers of the Crown, and to the mem- which have taken place in Chancery proceedbers of the Committee of the House of Com- ings, the fees allowed by the Court are inademons, on Mr. Keating's Bill. This Bill, quate to the remuneration of solicitors. Alhowever, obtained the sanction of the Legis- though the attention of the Lord Chancellor lature, and is now the law of the land. Of the has been repeatedly called to this subject, the two, it was certainly the less objectionable.

orders of 1852 remain unaltered; but a come “ Your Committee also directed their atten- mission has been appointed to consider the tion to the Bill for giving protection to pur- existing system of remuneration, the members chasers against judgments, and suggested that of which are Lord Justice Turner, Vice-Chanthe great expense incurred by searches for cellor Page Wood, Mr. Walton, and Mr. judgments in the Registration Courts would Follett. It is to be regretted that some expebe obviated by the institution of one office for rienced London and provincial solicitors were the registration of all judgments and other not included in the commission, as their pracincumbrances intended to affect real estate. tical knowledge would have been of material They also expressed a desire that, if the Bill service in effectuating its objects. The Incorpassed, provision would be made to settle the porated Law Society has transmitted to the vexed question whether the registration of a commissioners a statement of such charges as judgment is ipso facto notice to a purchaser of in its view should be allowed, and Lord Justice real estate. Your Committee were in corre- Turner has addressed a letter to the various law spondence on this subject with George Had societies throughout the kingdom requesting field, Esq., M.P., who took charge of their suggestions upon the objects of the commission. report, and made every effort to give effect to Your Committee hope that their successors in their recommendations, but the Bill passed office will make every effort to bring about into a law without their suggestions being in such a change in the present system as the troduced into it.

justice of the case requires. “ Amongst the few important measures of

“One of the objects which the Association the last Session, your Committee refer to the has in view is, to support the respectability of Limited Liability Act as containing provisions the Legal Profession, and maintain its intewhich are open to serious objection. It may rests. The exclusion of attorneys and solici


Non-payment of Counsel's Fees.-Moot Points.

tors from the commission of the peace, appears | any payment on account, and that led me to to your Committee a matter which should have consider that the conveyancer, who was not the attention of the Association. The youngest otherwise employed by me, was as well entitled member of the bar is eligible for the appoint- to wait for his fees as I was to lay down money ment of a justice of the peace, while the attor- again and lose something in the shape of inte ney or solicitor, however great his experience rest. The gentleman sent his account to me, or profound his professional attainments, is after it had been standing for a few months, considered and treated as ineligible. That this with a note threatening to apply personally to practice is not consonant with the feeling or my client if the account was not discharged judgment of the community at large, is evident by a certain day. It was the first time I had from the fact, that from no class of society in been so addressed by any gentleman and I deproportion to its numbers is the selection of the cided to take no notice of his threat, because chief magistrate of cities and boroughs more if he did write, it would" touch the conscience frequently made, than from that of which we of the king " I thought, and I was indifferent. are members. Your Committee trust that The threat appeared to have been carried out. their successors will, in conjunction with other But instead of any avowal from the country Jaw societies, be enabled to induce the Lord Solicitor that his agent was already in adrance, Chancellor to review the grounds upon which the fees were probably remitted without obhe has hitherto excluded the solicitor from the servation, and the agent would suffer in the magisterial dignity, and to take up others more opinion of the gentleman. in conformity with the public good and the I think it would be well, for two reasons, if views of an enlightened age.

country, clients would require that Counsel A deputation from the Committee of this should have signed their fees when papers were Association attended the annual meeting of the returned. It would remind clients that fees Metropolitan and Provincial Association at had to be paid on papers ; and next, it would Birmingham, in October last, at which it was secure to counsel the prompt payment of their resolved that the next annual meeting of that fees. And this would much tend to get rid of association should be held in Manchester. the present complaint about the non-payment Your Committee have no doubt that efficient of fees. It is always gratifying to agents, and arrangements will be made by their successors much facilitates the progress of business, to for the reception of the members of that and keep short accounts with Counsel, but clients any other association who may attend the should assist them to do this. It is a serious forthcoming meeting.

matter in large agency offices. “In conclusion, your Committee hope they

A SOLICITOR. may congratulate the members of the Association on the prospects of the ensuing year. An

MOOT POINTS. influential legal periodical has stated its opinion that already the results of the reforms in procedure are found in the steady increase in legal business, and that the season of extreme de

To the Editor of the Legal Observer. pression is past. All the evil of change has been endured, the benefits are just beginning

SIR, -Allow me to invite an opinion through to be felt, and the year 1856 opens upon the your pages upon the following rather singular lawyer with far brighter prospects than any of case, which has lately come under my profesits predecessors for a long time past.' While sional notice. your Committee are disposed to concur in

A. B., several years since, assigned a policy these sentiments, they are deeply convinced of assurance on his own life to C. D., a feme

The that the circumstances of the present time, as sole, who has since become his wife. regards their professional standing and useful- policy is, and was at the time of their marness, need the watchful care of this society as tled.' Notice of the marriage was given to the

riage, of considerable value ;-it was not setmuch as did those which first called it into existence."

office, and the premiums upon the policy have [A report of the speeches at the annual assured being a reversion expectant on the life

since been paid by the husband. The money dinner will appear in a future Number.]

of the husband, the questions which arise are

1. Whether by the payment of the premiums NON-PAYMENT OF COUNSEL'S by A. B. to prevent its' forfeiture, the policy FEES.

has not been reduced into possession so as to

entitle him to the ownership? To the Editor of the Legal Observer.

2. If not, is A. B. entitled to its present Sir-I notice the letter of "a Quondam value, and can he make a title pro tanto either Conveyancer” in your number of the 9th in- to a mortgagee or purchaser, or surrender the stant. I had this case a little time back. As policy to the office? directed by a client in the north of England I

3. If he is not entitled either to the policy placed his papers before his friend Mr.

or its present value, has he not an equitable and I paid the gentleman several fees. A fur: lien on the policy for the premiums he has ther account was incurred principally in my

it ?
paid upon
Jan. 16, 1856.

A SUBSCRIBER. client's personal matters. I was not receiving




Barristers Called.-Professional Lists.


Nov. 17, 1855.

Hopson Pinckney Walker, Esq., B.A.
Nov. 17, 1855.

Charles William Crouch, Esq., B.A.
John Langton Sanford, Esq.

Edward William Pittar, Esq., M.A. Francis Mount Barlow, Esq.

Edward Clennell Dunn, Esq., B.A. William Lascelles, Esq.

Samuel Bruce, Esq., L.L.B. Thomas Rees Oliver Powell, Esq.

Edward Henry Lovell, Esq., B.A. William Huskisson Tilghman, Esq.

Charles William Dyer, Esq., M.A. Joseph Henry Woolley, Esq.

Charles Cherry, Esq.
Arthur Joseph Munby, Esq.

Jan. 26, 1856.
Joseph Loxdale Warren, Esq.
Joseph Dixon, Esq.

Robert Marshall Straight, Esq.
Henry Clark, Esq.

Henry Gawtress, Esq. William Brodrick, Esq.

John Dickie, Esq. Frederick Williams, Esq.

Thomas Henry Derbishire, Esq. Henry James Conington, Esq.

William Thomas Image, Esq., B.A. Joseph Pedley, Esq.

Thomas Eyre Foakes, Esq. Henry Mather Jackson, Esq.

Henry Gardner, Esq.

John Richard Andrews, Esq.
Jan. 26, 1856.
Clement Tụdway Swanston, Jun., Esq., B.A.

Martindale Edwin Sale, Esq., B.A.

Nov. 17, 1855.
Francis Vaughan Hawkins, Esq., B.A.
Henry Denne, Esq., B.A.

James Goodson, Esq.
Henry Oliver Barker, Esq., B.A.

Jan. 26, 1856. George Valentine Yool, Esq., M.A.

Hampson William Whitmarsh, Esq.
William B. D. D. Turnbull, Esq.

William Andrews Holdsworth, Esq.
Arthur Townley Watson, Esq., M.A.
Robert Thornagh Gurdon, Esq., M.A.
William Lloyd Cabell, Esq., M.A.

John Marshall Hayman, Esq., M.A.
George Gwyn Elger, Esq., M.A.

PERPETUAL COMMISSIONERS. Bingham Arthur Ferard, Esq., M.A. Appointed under the Fines and Recoveries' Act, Andrew Richard Scoble, Esq.

with dates when Gazetted. Cecil Henry Russell, Esq., M.A.

Scudamore, Frederick, Maidstone, in and John Charles Wilson, Esq., B.A.

for the county of Kent. Feb. 15. William Norton Lawson, Esq., B.A.

Stockwood, John, Cowbridge, in and for the

county of Glamorgan.
Nov. 17, 1855.


OATHS IN CHANCERY. William Murray, Esq.

Appointed under the 16 8. 17 Vict. c. 78, with Thomas Francis Freemantle, Esq.

date when Gazetted. Nathaniel Charles Curzon, Esq., B.A.

Woodward, John Harry Jonathan, March, Whitley Stockes, Esq., B.A.

Cambridgeshire. Jan. 29. Herbert Eliot Ormerod, Esq., B.A. William Algernon Slade Gully, Esq., M.A. Francis Seymour George, Esq., B.A. Henry Charles Hull, Esq., B.A. Herbert William Fisher, Esq., M.A. From 22nd Jan. to 15th Feb., 1856, both incluFrancis Philips, Esq., B.A.

sive, with dates when Gazetted. Charles Marshall Griffith, Esq., M.A.

Allan, Robert Munro, and Michael Allan, William Leech, Esq., B.A. Edward Wallace Goodlake, Esq.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Attorneys and Solici

tors. Jan. 29. *Jan. 26, 1856.

Croome, Thomas Clutterbuck, and Henry T. Henry Baylis, Esq., M.A.

Harris, Cainscross, near Stroud, Attorneys and Frederick Charles Millar, Esq., B.A. Solicitors, Feb. 12. James Bevan Bowen, Esq., M.A.

Myers, William Hugh, and John Clarkson Edmund Christian Law, Esq., B.A. Birkbeck, Manchester, Attorneys and Solici. Frederic Hyman Lewis, Esq.

tors. Feb. 8. Benjamin Leigh Smith, Esq.

Richardson, Thomas, and John Cobb, Uta Edgar Skipper, Esq., L.L.B.

toxeter, Attorneys and Solicitors. Feb. 1. Charles Wentworth Walker, Esq., B.A. Thomas, Joshua, and Lauriston Winter. William Brandt, Esq., B.A.

botham Lewis, Tewkesbury, Attorneys and Richard Hambly Andrew, Esq.

Solicitors. Feb. 5.



« EelmineJätka »