Page images



Incorporated Law Society.-Law of Attorneys and Solicitors. left the Hall on delivering in their papers; and Pendleton, for the sum of 3001. The instrict orders have been given to exclude all terest was irregularly paid, and the prostrangers.

perty was not more than a security for the principal annount charged. In the month

of October, 1852, the mortgagor employed The Hall, being occupied for the purposes Messrs. Stockley and Thompson, as his of the Examination, will be closed to the Mem- solicitors, to pay off the mortgage. They bers on the day of Examination until six applied to the mortgagee and his solicitor, o'clock, when it will be re-opened.

Mr. Barrow, who expressed Mr. Pendleton's The newspapers, Parliamentary papers, and willingness to be paid off. The account notices will be placed in the Library, which was rendered, and the bill of costs of Mr. will be open for the use of the Members until livered at the same time, and which

Barrow, the mortgagee's solicitor, was desix o'clock P.M.

amounted to the sum of 231. 75. 7d. The Some inconvenience occurred at the Exami- mortgagor's solicitor took exceptions to this nation in last Michaelmas Term, in conse- of which was, that more than one-sixth of

bill, and referred it to taxation, the result quence of a crowd of persons coming into the it was taxed off. When the amount due outer ball of the Society during the Examina- on the bill had been ascertained by taxtion, and also on the following day. The Can- ation, and in November, 1952, the solicitor didates are admitted between half-past nine of the mortgagor wrote to Mr. Barrow, and and ten o'clock, when the Hall door is proposed then to pay the amount due for closed. The answers to the questions are principal and interest and the costs so not received till one o'clock, but may


taxed, On the 18th of November, Mr. brought up from that time till four o'clock.

Barrow wrote a letter, as follows:-" Re

Abram. I shall be ready at any time to There is other business of the Society to be

receive the costs herein, when you may transacted during the day, and the Members please to pay them. As to anything furof the Society are constantly resorting to the ther iu respect of this person, I am sorry Library, especially as they are excluded from that owing to his own improper course of the Hall during the Examination. It is, there conduct, I do not feel at liberty to say any. fore, inconvenient that a crowd of persons thing on behalf of the mortgagee to you." should assemble and remain in the outer hall, The mortgagee, in the same month, refused through which the Members have to pass to to receive his principal and interest, which the Library.

were offered to him, and the result was, that The above regulations have, tiierefore, been notice of an assignment of the equity of remade. On the occasion referred to, there must

demption to the petitioner and of an intenhave been many persons who had no right to

tion to pay off the mortgage, was served enter or remain in the outer hall and passages ; 1852, which notice expired on the 28th

on the petitioner on the 28th December, and the throng at the entrance was calculated June, 1853. On then applying to pay off to excite the curiosity of the idle, and perhaps the mortgage, a fresh bill for 201. was deto induce less harmless persons to join it. It livered by Mr. Barrow, the mortgagee's is useless for the Candidates to remain after solicitor, which was proposed to be paid they have delivered in their papers, because under protest. Mr. Barrow refused so to the Examiners cannot finish their labours till receive it, and offered to take the principal the next day; and four o'clock has been fixed and interest due on the mortgage, and to to enable the Candidates to communicate with

retain the deeds until the amount on the

bill could be ascertained and settled. This their friends in the country by the post of that

was refused, and ultimately the bill was evening.

paid on June 30, 1853, the protest laring

been withdrawn, and immediately after, Mr. LAW OF ATTORNEYS AND

Barrow was informed that it would be SOLICITORS.

taxed, and the petition for that purpose

was presented within a few weeks. TAXATION OF BILL OF COSTS AFTER PAY- The Master of the Rolls said :

MENT.FRAUDULENT ITEMS, It appeared that in the Month of De bill, amounting to the sum of 202. after pay

“This is an application to tax a solicitor's cember, 1846, Henry Abram, 'a pavior at ment. It requires a very special case to inLiverpool, mortgaged two houses to John duce the Court to make such an order. The


[ocr errors]

Law of Attorneys and Solicitors.

221 cases are very numerous on the subject, and it | authority and proceedings. The rights so inmay be said, that they lay down as the rule, terfered with were these :- Mr. Pendleton had that there must be pressure on the person been paid his full interest due up to the last paying, and overcharges in the bill, or else day of payment; there was no arrear, and nothat there should be items in the bill itself, of thing was due to him in respect of interest. such a nature as to amount to what is some- At that time, also, it is but reasonable to supwhat vaguely called fraud.

pose, he intended to refuse, as he did a few There was, in my opinion, sufficient time to weeks afterwards actually refuse, to receive ascertain and consider the objections to the the principal and interest due to him; he had bill before it was paid. In fact, the bill is not thought proper to give notice to the tenants to only a short one, but it is evident that the pay their rents to him, and he had, against the whole of the objections to the bill were well wish and in spite of the opposition of the mortunderstood before the bill was paid. Nor gagor, received 10s. 5d. from one of the tenants, does there, in my opinion, exist, in this case, on the 18th of October, and 101. 10s. on the what can properly be called pressure, In 19th or 20th of that month, although, as I coming, therefore, to the conclusion which I repeat, nothing was due for interest at that have arrived at, that it is my duty to make an tiine ; all this being after the letter of the 13th order for taxation, I have done so mainly upon of October, informing Mr. Barrow that his bill consideration of the items contained in this bill, i would be taxed. Mr. Abram, the mortgagor, connected, as they are, with the other circum- resists this proceeding with the tenants, and stances of the case. I think it desirable to state distrains on the tenants. this distinctly, in order that if, as is probable, This is the account given of this transacthis case should go further, the grounds on tion by Mr. Barrow :-"On the 18th of Ocwhich I proceed may be clearly understood, and tober Í had, against the opposition of Henry that I may not be supposed to be infringing Abram, received from the tenant 10s. 5d, for on the rule I have hitherto followed, with re- rent, being the first sum of any kind I relation to taxation after payment. The items ceived on account of the said interest ; and on which have principally influenced me are items the 30th of the same month, Abram distrained to this effect:

on the said tenant for the said rent so paid by ** To taking instructions, &c., to file a bill him, and notwithstanding the threats and reof foreclosure. [His Honour stated the items, monstrances of the tenant, he enforced paywhich amounted io 101. 14s. 8d.]

ment of the said rent, as he also, in like " In order to form a just opinion respecting manner, did on two subsequent occasions, the costs so incurred, it is necessary to recur namely, in the months of November and to the situation of the parties, during the time December following, though the mortgagee when this bill of foreclosure must have been was still in the receipt of the rents. He conprepared. In October, 1852, the mortgagee, tinues,—“ In consequence of the said distress Mr. Pendleton, under the advice of Mr. by Abram, on the 30th of October, I at once Barrow, was willing to receive his principal, submitted instructions to counsel to prepare interest, and costs; the payment is delayed by a bill or other proceedings in Chancery, as the taxation of Mr. Barrow's first bill; at this circumstances might justify, in order to entime there was no arrear of interest due to the force and protect the rights of the mortgagee.' mortgagee; on the contrary, the mortgagee “ It is not alleged that these costs were inhad distrained and received a sum in advance, curred because the mortgagee thought that his beyond the interest due. The evidence con- mortgage-money was in peril, nor if so alleged pinces me that he and his solicitor not only could it be true, consistently with the facts adhad reason to believe, but that they did be- mitted, to which I have already adverted. On lieve, that the money was ready to pay him off. the contrary, Mr. Pendleton, in his second afThe date of the preparation of the bill of fore- fidavit, says,—That on the second proposal closure is not given in the bill of costs more to pay off the mortgage without notice being precisely than Michaelmas, 1852,' but the made to me, I did not, for various reasons, items occur in the bill between the 2nd and feel disposed to receive the same, mainly in the 18th of November, 1852 ; and the affi davit consequence of the said Henry Abram's misof Mr Barrow says, that instructions were given conduct in resisting my powers as mortgagee, at once, in consequence of Mr. Abram’s con- as already stated, and for other reasons conduct in distraining on the 30th of October. nected with the said Henry Abram ; and acIt was therefore pending these transactions, cordingly my solicitor wrote to Messrs. Stockley certainly after the order to tax the first bill and Thompson, in answer to their letter, that was obtained, and probably during its taxation, owing to the misconduct of Henry Abram, my that instructions are given to prepare a bill of solicitor was not at liberty to say anything on foreclosure, which was never filed, and which my bebalf relating to Abram.' I cannot ascertain that it was intended to file, "These are certainly not sufficient reasons and an expense of half the bill, between 101. to justify the taking of such a step as the preand 111. is incurred in so doing.

paration of the bill of foreclosure, and I am “The reasons given in the affidavits for this compelled reluctantly to come to the concluproceeding are wholly unsatisfactory. They sion, that an ingredient in the incurring of are, that the mortgagor was interfering with these costs was a desire to prove to the mortthe rights of the mortgagee, and opposing his gagor what a foolish and inexpedient proceed


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 imit 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. No

“ 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 boná 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 de to 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


[ocr errors]

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 case as the present, it appears to nie 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 not induce the Court to take this course, and,

ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVITS ON APPEAL FROM 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.

affidavits in addition to those read at Cham“I shall, therefore, in this case, make the usual order for taxation.” In re Barrow, 17 bers may be used. Sanderson v. Proctor, 10 Beav. 547.

Exch. R. 189.



[blocks in formation]

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 Crockett, Richard Singleton, Brighton; and Inn Fields Croydon

Phelps, Isaac, South Brent Dawson, John Huntingdon, 2, Spring Ter., Powell, Frederick, Knaresborough Wandsworth Road

Remington, Reginald, Rochdale Drake, John, Launceston

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 lonn, William, 44, Upper Winchester Street, Walker, George, Spilsby Islington.

Walker, George H., Newbold Grange, Ruge 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.


Lord Chancellor.

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 with The 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 him, and afterwards he was committed for right.

to the other items disallowed, the Master was the contempt. Upon his release on an undertaking to pay the costs occasioned by

In re Hodges. Jan. 12, 13, 1855. his contempt, held that the costs of the motion for an injunction were included in MAINTENANCE OF INFANT OUT OF FUND such costs.

PAID IN UNDER TRUSTEES' RELIEF ACT. This was an application for a direction to

Held, that a Judge at Chambers has not juthe Taxing Master. It appeared that an in.

risdiction under the 15 & 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 & 11 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 enhill'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 Miss Thonrhill from the than in open Court, viz.," "applications as to custody of her guardians with the view to a the guardianship and maintenance of infants." private marriago, and motions had been made Turner and 'Roupell, jun., for the several to restrain such removal, and to commit for parties.

Cur. ad. vult.

« EelmineJätka »