AN INTERESTING LITTLE BILL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5370, 13 June 1878, Page 3

AN INTERESTING LITTLE BILL.

(From the Dunedin Morning Herald, 7th just.) The Law Charges of Mu. W. L. Bees and Me. T. W. Hislop, M.H.R.’S, in Connection with the Parliamentary Prosecution of Mr. George Jones, Jon., Oamaru, for Alleged Libel. As already stated, by us the full amount claimed by Mr. J. A. Hislop, solicitor, Dunedin, and Messrs. Hislop and Creagh, solicitors, Oamaru, is £2117 14s. Mr. J. A. Hislop'a charges., which, with an individual exception, seem fairly moderate, amount to—

Mr. A. Hislop’a bill of costs commences with an item dated 20th September, 1877, in these words: —“ Having received telegram from Mr. Hislop, at Wellington, hereon, and instructing me to issue subpoena,” &c. This bill of costs discloses and charges for a number of communications between Mr. J, A. Hislop, Dunedin, and Mr. T. W. Hislop while in Wellington. There are many charges for interviews between Mr. J- Hislop and tbe Crown Solicitor in Dunedin. Then, with regard to striking a jury for the trial, there is a charge, on 4th March, 1878, for “attending Messrs. Stout and Reed, submitting list, and conferring thereon—long attendance—£l Is. On the sth March there is an item, “Having received list from Messrs. Hislop and Creagb, with instructions, perusing, &0., 6s. Bd.” “ Attending Messrs. Reed and Fenwick, conferring, 13s. 4d.” Outhe 18th March there is an item, “Attending you as to your expenses, when I advised you to petition the House, 6s. Bd. Preparing petition, and getting same engrossed, £5 55.” The fees alleged to have been paid to Mr. Rees are as follow: In Mr. J. A. Hislop’a bill:—

This amount seems at first sight moderate compared with Mr. Rees’ £920 135.; but it is to be remembered that the bill of Hislop and Creagh amounts in all to £1709 10s. Id. Mr. J: A. Hislop charges for letters, messages, attendances, and telegrams, from September to March, the sum of £25. This, however, is a lump sum charged in addition to detailed and specific items for simifar services. Messrs. Hislop and Creagh charge in addition to specified items in respect of similar services, tho sum of £SO “ for letters, messages, telegrams, and attendances from August, 1877, to March, 1878.” The following items also appear in their account: — £ s. d. Instructions for brief .. 62 10 0 Drawing brief .. _ 7500 Engrossing .. .. .. .. .* 700 0 Copy for Mr. Hislop 70 0 0 There are also some curious and instructive items in the bills rendered. We have already quoted one of these for attendances on Messrs. Stout and Reid, conferring over the jury list, and also upon Messrs. Reid and Fenwick upon the same subject. On 15th February, 1878, we find Messrs. Hislop and Creagh charging for conferring with Mr. Jones, “ and Mr. G. M. Reid re case in long attendance.” On 16 th February, “ telegram to Mr. G. M. Reid ” is made an entry to debit of the account. On October Bth, “attending Mr. James Mackay as to evidence he could give ; several attendances ou him and Mr. Rees, when it was determined not to subpeena him, £2 25.” Then on 22nd December, “ attending you as to what witnesses you required, and as to getting money to pay their expenses, 6s. Bd.” “Telegram to Mr. Rees as to witnesses, 9s. 4d.” “Attending you—urging you to put ns in funds, when we prepared document to be signed by somo friends, £1 Is.” And on March 3rd, 1878, there is this highly suggestive item, “Jury list having been sent, going carefully through same with you; attending on various persons as to jurymen, £2 25.”

We do not think anything more recherche than this item ought reasonably to be looked for in a lawyer’s bill of coats, and we therefore now part from the whole subject with the observation that the bills will well repay repeated study. We had intended to publish them in eztenso, but as they cover twentythree pages of foolscap, our readers will have to defer an expectant treat until the Parliamentary blue books of next session make their appearance,

£ 8. rl. 273 6 2 Then his bill proceeds thus— £aid agents’ expenses as follows— HIslop and Creagh < Izard and Bell 2 2 0 Mr. Tyler .. 4 13 8 Mr. Fitzhorbert Witnesses — Mr. Bri«senden .. .. £27 G 0 Capt. Beaden .. .. 23 16 0 Mr. Clarke .. .. .. 23 Dr. Pollen 45 y 0 Mr. Taiaroa, 4 14 0 m is 0 2117 14 0

* t. s. d. March 11.—Consultation Mr. Rees a 5 0 Fee settling joinder in demurrer.. i 3 U Paid. Mr. Rees fee on demurrer .. 15 5 0 March 12. —Judgment having been given • for the Crown, consultation with Mr. Rees,. 3 5 6 Paid Mr. Poes to settle amended plea .. 6 10 0 March 14. —Consultation with Mr. Rees .. 3 5 6 Mr. Bees settling joinder in demurrer to amended plea 1 3 6 ■ Mr. Ilees to argue demurrer 21 0 0 53 IS 6 In Messrs. Hislop and Oreagh’s bill the fees paid to Mr. Kees are as follows : £ a. d. 1877—September.--Paid Mr. Bees retainer 11 0 0 Consultation at hotel 2 4 6 Fee Wellington Police Court September 20.—Consultation 22 0 0 5 10 0 Settling pleas 5 10 0 1878—March 9.—Consultation 6 10 0 Paid Mr. Bees with brief 640 0 0 Refresher .. 275 0 0 Making thus a total of 920 13 0 The fees alleged to have been paid to Mr. JL‘. W. Hislop personally are as follows : d. £ Retainer for Mr. Hislop 5 7 6 Consultation j.. 3 6 6 March 9, 1878, consultation 3 5 6 Mr, Hislop's fee with brief 270 0 0 Refresher 137 10 0 £410 8 C