LAWYERS' COSTS..

Evening Star, Issue 10391, 12 August 1897, Page 2

LAWYERS' COSTS..

HOW AN, ESTATE OF £1,200 WAS "TRANSFERRED." ' Henry Lyfield, a Victorian farmer, was some time ago charged with the murder of his wife (Catherine) under revolting eircumstances. The jury found that he was unable to plead by reason of lunacy. The trial then went on, and the plea of inßanity was upheld by the verdict of the jury, and the prisoner was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Mr Justioe Hood thereupon oom. mittad Lyfield to.prison, to be kept there during the Governor's pleasure, and there he still remains. Meantime the M&pter in Lunaoy made inquiries concerning aooused's property. From this it appeared that Mr William Fowling, solicitor for -Lyfield, had in his possession the whole of the effects of tho prisoner, amounting to about £1,277, but that ha claimed to retain £1,200 out of this as the amount which was due to him under an agreement made with the prisoner after the coroner's inquest had been held. By that agreement Lvfield promised to pay £1,200 to Mr Powling for carrying on his defence in the Criminal Court, and Mr Coldham was to pay the fees of medical and all other witnesses, and generally see to the conduct of the defence to the end, as well as wind up Lyfield's business affairs. Resting on this agreement, Powling declined to deliver a detailed or any bill of costs to the Master in Lunacy, and consequently a summons was taken out. It was stated that in fact Mr Powling had expended between £7OO and £BOO out of pocket on the prisoner's defence.

The Chief Justice, in giving his decision in favor of Mr Powling, said that under the Solicitors' Remuneration Act it was lawful for a solicitor to agree with his client to do his business for a lump sum, and when such an agreement was entered into the client deprived himself of the right which he would otherwise have of having a bill of costs delivered to him, and of having that bill submitted to taxation. In' the present case the matter was quite clear, for there had been an agreement made for a lump sum, and therefore the client had not a right to demand a bill of costs, and, in His Honor's opinion, the fact that this had been a criminal trial made no difference to the rule, so that the sections of the Crimes Act relied upon did not apply. The summons was therefore dismissed with costs.

The subject is to be brought before Parliament, Mr Hamilton, a member, having given notice to ask the Acting-Premier :—(1) Whether hia attention has been drawn to a statement in the public Press to the effect that a solicitor named William Powling bad charged Henry Lyfield the sum of £1,200 for defending him on a charge of murder. (2) As Lyfield was afterwards adjudged insane, at least so far as murder was concerned, is it not probable he was insane on financial matters also, when he agreed (as alleged by Powling) to pay him £1,200 for the case. (3) Will the Acting-Premier order an inquiry to be made as to the costs of this case, with a view to saving some of it from Powling in order to provide for the relatives of Lyfield. (4) If the present law allows a solicitor to take the whole of his client's property on a bill of costs in such a case as this, will the Acting-Premier bring in a Bill this session to prevent the same.