DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2295, 11 August 1881, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

THIS DAY. ("Before his Honor Judge Ward.] His Honor took his seat at 11 a.m. H. C. YOUNG V SPACKMAN, Mr Holmes for plaintiff, defendant in person. Mr Spackman submitted as a preliminary objection that the plaintiff had filed a deed of composition in the Supreme Court. Mr Holmes took exception to his learned friend arguing this question until he had proved the existence of the deed. He admitted nothing, and Mr Spackman would have to prove his case. Hi. Honor upheld Mr Holmes’ objection. This was a case in which H. O. Young was plaintiff and W. H. Spackman defendant. The plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £BO, moneys said to have been had by the defendant as solicitor for the plaintiff. The case for the plaintiff os opened by Mr

t Holmes was, that plaintiff in March coni suited the defendant, and when leaving r him in the street defendant called him , back and asked him whether he had paid i Messrs Joynt and Percevai’e costs in the oases t of Hill v Young and Young v Hill. Plaintiff 1 said yes ;ho had paid somewhere about £BC9. • The defendant said in reply “ Good God, what a bill.” He then said that he could tax off at least £2OO from this bill, which would be something for Young, The plaintiff then declined, but afterwards the plaintiff went down with the bill, and defendant stated that he would knock off one-sixth on taxation, which would not cost plaintiff anything. Ihe bill was taxed, and £l2O taxed off, the defendant receiving £35 costs from Messrs Joynt and Perceval. The defendant also charged £54 Is for taxation costs. Subsequently the plaintiff consulted the defendant as to the filing of a deed of composition, end an arrangement was made that the cost of the deed should bo £l4 and costs out of pocket. In the bill of costs rendered, however, tho sum of £7B was charged. The total amount charged for taxing costs and filing of a deed of composition was £IBO 6s, making with the refund paid to plaintiff a total of £173 for the two services spoken of. Mr Holmes concluded his opening of the case by a scathing commentary on the present law referring to costs, stating that it was especially devised to legally enable one class of persons to plunder another, and trusting that the Legislature would sweep away the present law as to costs, <tc., altogether, substituting the District Court procedure for the Supreme Court. i Mr Spaokman submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction in this matter, as tho - Supreme Court Procedure Act specially made the Supreme Court the tribunal for settling costs incurred under deeds of composition on ! behalf of the arranging debtor, j Mr Holmes submitted that this was not a 1 case as to arrangement of costs. The plaintiff had made a bargain, and now defendant 1 sought to charge far more than tho arrange- £ ment. t

His Honor, as at present advised, did not think this was a matter as to arrangement of costs, but simply whether a certain bargain had been made or not. If he decided that such a bargain had been made, the plaintiff could take such course as he might be advised. Ho had no doubt as to jurisdiction, as the Act did not mean that the Supreme Court had exclusive jurisdiction. The case then proceeded. W. H. Byes, jun., produced all the papers in tho case filed in the Supreme Court. Henry Charles Young, the plaintiff, deposed that about the middle of March last he consulted defendant as to a judgment. Plaintiff told defendant that he wished to see him with regard to the effect ef a judgment on his property at Bicoarton. After the business portion of the conversation was over defendant asked if plaintiff had had bis bill of costs from Joynt and Perceval, and what was the amount ? Plaintiff said about £BOO, and defendant said—“ Good God, what a bill; have you had-it taxed?” Plaintiff said it was too late, as it had been paid. Defendant said it was not too late, and that he could get £2OO off it. Defendant at this time had not seen the bill of costs. Plaintiff demurred to the expense which would likely to ensue, but defendant said that the other side would have to pay the costs, and that it would be no expense to plaintiff. Plaintiff declined to go into the matter, and defendant then said if he liked to pay such bills of costs that was his look-out. It was airanged that Mr Spackman should communicate with plaintiff as to the effect of the judgment. Mrs Young subsequently went to town and saw Mr Spackman, bringing back a letter and a message telling plaintiff to be sure to call next morning relative to the taxation of Joynt and Perceval's costs. The letter stated that possession could not be taken, but the bailiffs came out the same day and did take possession. About a fortnight after this plaintiff consulted defendant as to filing a deed of composition, and as to taxation of the costs of Joynt and Perceval. Plaintiff complained that he was in distressed circumstances, and eould not pay much. Defendant said the last deed he had had anything to do with had cost £49, but that under the circumstances, and considering tho way in which plaintiff had been treated by the profession, he would do the work for £l4 and costa out of pocket. Plaintiff subsequently egreed to this, subject to the consent of his creditors. Plaintiff and defendant then discussed the question of Messrs Joynt and Perceval’s costs. Defendant said he could only say approximately how much would oomo off until he saw the bill, but he thought onesixth would be taxed off, which would result in Messrs Joynt and Perceval having to pay the costs, and that it would not cost plaintiff a penny. Witness replied that in that case they would do it. The bill of costs was shown to defendant next day, and he was also instructed to proceed with the deed of composition as arranged for. The bill of costs was ultimately taxed, and £l2O was taxed off, with £35 costs of taxation. Defendant obtained an order from witness to receive this refund from Messrs Joynt and Perceval on defendant’s application. Defendant said that Joynt and Perceval would not pay the money, and said he , would attach them. Plaintiff declined to pay any oasts on this account, and defendant said that it would not cost him anything. In the bill of costs supplied by defendant to plaintiff credit was given for £l5B 3s received from Messrs Joynt and Perceval. On the first bill of costs defendant brought the plaintiff in debt to him of about £3 odd. At a meeting of creditors the defendant stated in answer to a question, that the amount coming to plaintiff would be about £IOO. The defendant had charged £55 Is 4d for the taxation of Joynt and Perceval’s costs, and for the enforcement of payment of refund, £24 13« 2d. Defendant finally a cheque for £6 12s as all coming to plaintiff, to which plaintiff sent the letter put in. Mr Spaokman objected to tho letter going in, as he had no recollection of ever seeing it. Mr Holmes pointed out that Mr Spaokman had had notice to produce. His Honor ruled that the letter could g > in. Cross-examined by Mr Spaokman—The conversation regarding the bill of costs took place in tho street. The actions in which witness was engaged extended over eighteen months, and all that was wanted was that the defendant had only to look at the judgment. As a matter of fact defendant’s opinion was wrong, and plaintiff had to consult another solicitor. On reflection, witness thought that he showed defendant the bill of costs on the occasion of his first visit. Defendant said that the minimum of refund would be £lO9. Defendant never told witness that it would cost him a few pounds to get the bill taxed. He said it should not cost witness a penny, but he said that if the amount taxed off came to one-sixth Joynt and Perceval would have to pay tho cost. Witness was not aware whether £2 2s was a heavy charge for searching three hoars in the Supreme Court. Mr Button went up to the Supreme Court and told him in five minutes. He did not charge him anything. Mr Beoce paid £34 5s of the last bill of coats. Mr Spaokman desired to ask witness whether Mr Beece was not to have a part of the property in consideration of the advance. Mr Holmes objected. His Honor allowed the question. Witness then produced bills of costs in Young v Hill, Cross-examination continued—Prom March 26th to June 14tb, witness was in the oflloa of defendant about four times a week. He sup* posed about 141 attendances would be correct. Witness was sure that defendant never

spoke as to security for costs. Witness paid defendant £7 10s for costs out of pocket. [Eeceipt put in.J Mr Holmes called attention to the fact that the stamp was insufficiently cancelled, and that defendant had rendered himself liable to a penalty. Cross-examination continued—Witness gave defendant an order to receive the money from Joynt and Perceval, and, subsequently, at his request, made affidavit that he had assigned the money as security for costs. His Honor pointed out that the document given as an order was not an assignment, whilst an affidavit had been prepared by Mr Spaokman that it was so. Mr Spackman said that he told witness that the order was an assignment, and upon this he had made an affidavit.

The witness denied that the order as given was intended as an assignment for costs. His Honor inquired, Why then did ha sign the affidavit that he assigned the money as security for costs The witness said he understood that it was to bo in trust for him. Defendant had advised him that it was necessary to file the affidavit, as Messrs. Harper and Harper had attached the money. Witness did not know that the application to the Supreme Court was principally to get the documents and not the

money refunded from Messrs. Joynt am) Perceval. There was nothing said about taking out a summons for the papers, but there was for the money. Mr Spaokmaa deprecated the remark of Mr Holmes that hia bill was exorbitant. Mr Holmes said that if he had characterised the bill of costs aa an extravagant one, he desired to withdraw it. What he intendtti to convey was that if the law allowed such bills, the sooner tho law was altered the better.. The witness was cross-examined at some length on the various items of the bill of costs. The work done was done fairly and well. [Left sitting.]