AN INTERESTING LITTLE BILL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5377, 21 June 1878, Page 7

AN INTERESTING LITTLE BILL.

(From the Dunedin Morning Herald, 7th inst.) The Law Charges of Mr. W. L. Eees and Mr. T. W. Hislop, H.H.B.’S, in Connection with the Parliamentary Prosecution op Mr. George Jones, Jdn., Oamaro, 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, Oamarn, is £2117 Us. Mr. J. A. Hislop’s charges., which, with an individual exception, seem fairly moderate, amount to— J £ 5. d. 273 6 2

ZJ.J./ Jt u Mr. A. Hislop’s 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 mo to issue subpoena,” &o. 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 the 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 Heed, submitting list, and conferring thereon—long attendance—£l Is, On the sth March there is an item, “ Having received list from Messrs. Hislop and Greagh, with instructions, perusing, &0., 6s. Bd.” “ Attending Messrs. Eeed and Fenwick, conferring, 13s. 4d.” On the 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;

This amount seems at first sight moderate compared with Mr. Rees’, £920 135.; but it is to be remembered that the bill of Hislop aud 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 aud specific items for simifar services. Messrs. Hislop and Creagh charge in addition to specified items in respect of similar services, the sum of £SO “for letters, messages, telegrams, and attendances from August, 1877, to March, 1878.’’ The following items also appear in their account: —

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 rc case in long attendance.” On 16th 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 atitondances on him and Mr. Rees, when it was determined not to subpoena 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 us in funds, when we prepared document to bo 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; i attending on various persons as to jurymen, . £2 25.” We do not think anything more vechcvche than this item ought reasonably to be looked for in a lawyer's bill of costs, and we there- ■ fore now part from the whole subject with the observation that the bills will well repay [ repeated study. We had intended to publish them in extcnso, but as they cover twenty- ; three pages of foolscap, our readers wiU have to defer an expectant treat until the Parliai mentary blue books of next session make their i appearance.

Then his bill proceeds thus— Paid agents’ expenses as follows— Hislop and Creagh .. Izard and Bell Mr. Tyler .. Mr. Fitzherbert Witnesses — Mr. Brisscnden .. £27 6 0 Capt. Beadeu 23 15 0 Mr. Clarke .. .. 23 15 Dr. Pollen 45 8 0 4 14 0 — 124 IS 0 2117 34 0

In Mr. J. A. Hislop's bill: — d. March 11.—Consultation Mr. Rees a 6 G Fee settling joinder in demurrer.. i 3 6 Paid Mr. Rees tee on demurrer .. 15 5 0 March 12.—Judgment having been given for the Crown, consultation with Mr. Roes.. 8 6 Paid Mr. Reos to settle amended plea .. 5 10 0 March 14.—Consultation with Mr. Roes .. 3 5 C Mr. Rocs settling joinder in demurrer to amended pica .. 1 3 6 Mr. Rees to argue demurrer 21 0 0 53 18 C In Blessrs. Hislop and Oreagh’s bill the fees paid to Mr. Kees are as follows : & d. 1877—September.—Paid Mr. Rees retainer li 6 0 Consultation at hotel Fee Wellington Police Court 22 0 0 September 20. —Consultation 5 10 Settling pleas 6 10 0 1878—March 9. —Consultation 5 10 0 Paid Mr. Reos with brief 540 0 0 Refresher .. .. .. 275 0 0 Making thus a total of 920 13 0 The fees alleged to have been paid to Mr. T. W. Hislop personally are as follows ; & s. d. Retainer for Mr. Hislop .. 5 V 6 Consultation 3 5 6 March 9, 1878, consultation .. .. ■ 3 Mr. Hislop's fee with brief 270 0 0 Refresher .. £419 8 G

Instructions for brief.. 0 Drawing brief .. _ .. 75 0 0 Engrossing Copy for Mr. Hislop ..