COUNSEL’S FEE

Hokitika Guardian, 24 April 1929, Page 6

COUNSEL’S FEE

INTERESTING JUDGMENT

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association.)

AUCKLAND, April 23

The summons that was •brought by Alexander Henry Martin. Law Clerk, against Richard Arnold Singer, Barrister and Solicitor, in connection with a bill of costs was dismissed by Mr Justice Kennedy in a judgment delivered at the Supreme Court. Costs and disbursements were allowed to the defendant.

The judgment stated that Martin had appeared in the Police Court to answer a criminal charge, and ho was remanded to appear later. Singer was tlimt engaged by Martin to defend him, and he appeared in the Police Court, when Martin was further ie,nanded. Rater, at a preliminary hearing. 'Martin was committed to tlie Supreme Court for trinj. Singer said he had reason to believe that the lees due by Martin to other solicitors Rework done in previous litigation had not been paid. He named his fee at three hundred guineas and he insisted upon two thirds of his fee being paid before lie acted-on Martin's liehalf. Two hundred pounds were paid by Martin, but immediately prior to tiie trial in the Supreme Court, Martin notified Singer that'he had decided to employ other counsel, and required his bilk Eventually. Singer, who denied Martin’s right to an account. supplied a note of his fee,. in which Martin was debited with £3lo. being “My Counsel’s fee as arranged herein” and credit was allowed to the L->OO paid to Singer as barrister and solicitor. It was submitted, on behalf of Singer, that the fee paid. or pavable by Martin was not taxable bv the Registrar under the provisions of the Law Practitioners Act 1908. His Honour was ot opinion that this objection was sound. There was nothing to prevent- Singer, although both barrister and solicitor. agreeing with Martin in a matter whoh fell within the scope of the work of « barrister, as such, to act in that matter as a barrister, and to render service as a barrister, as distinct from service as a solicitor. He might act ;iS counsel, although he was at no time solicitor, for Martin, the person employing him. He did not apprehend that th" door is opened by this dee.ision as suggested by the counse •for applicant, to evasion by solicitor of ,Section 2<i of the Uaw Practitioner Act. 1908. That section operated for the relief of . solicitors rather than for the benefit of their clients, and the Court would look as well to the substance as to the form of a transaction.