Dispute as to a Solicitor's Account.

Evening Star, Issue 8506, 4 May 1891, Page 4

Dispute as to a Solicitor's Account.

A case before the Queen's Bench Division reveals a dispute between a solicitor and his client in the somewhat unusual circumstances of the solicitor refusing to accept remuneration for his services. It appears that about two years ago a firm of solicitors took proceedings in the Divorce Court on behalf of a Mrs Douglas, and a sum of L3OO was paid to them at the commencement of the proceedings in respect to their accruing costs. After the termination of the proceedings a request was made for a further sum of several hundred pounds. The solicitors averred a verbal agreement to pay them a lump sum of LI,OOO for the costs of the proceedings and the rectification of ■certain marriage settlements, and said that the LSOO had bean paid in pursuance of this arrangement. A demand was thereafter made that the solicitors should furnish a bill of coats, and in Ootober last a summons was taken out to enforce the demand. The solicitors thereafter returned the LSOO, the principal partner writing a letter containing the following passages :—" Jf I had thought for a moment that the arrangement as to the L},OQO was to be disputed, I should have kept a record in the ordinary way, but the most important part of the work is unknown to any of my clerks, and 1 cannot do justice to myself in delivering a bill, and, moreover, feel that it would not be fair to Mrs Douglas to place on record matters or circumstances which are practioally only known to myself, as she must be drawn into any proceedings taken against myself, and this would inevitably upset her and undo all the good I have been enabled to do her. I have therefore returned Mrs Paton the LSOO she paid me on acoount of disbursements, and pespeotfully ask the family tg accept the services I have rendered to Mrs Douglas." The letter finished thus:—"Jn conclusion, please take this as final, and that neither I nor my firm have any costs, charges, or expenses against Mrs Paton, Mrs Douglas, or Mr J. N. Paton. —Yours truly, Henry Griffith." To this the other side replied denying the agreement to pay LI,OOO, and saying that they did not wish to be under tjie obligation of gratis services to Mr Griffith. The Court came to the decision that they had no jurisdiction to order a bill of costs tp be finished. They said that the bona fides of both parties was unquestioned, and that,-therefore, onoe theaooonnt was disoharged the Oourt could make no for a bill, wwwmwwi mmmm