LAWYER’S FEES DISPUTED.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 5 December 1928, Page 9

LAWYER’S FEES DISPUTED.

CLIENTS’ DEFENCE FAILS

QUESTION OF WIFE’S LIABILITY

A claim for professional legal services rendered in respect of a successiul defence during former proceedings occupied the attention of Air. J, S. Barton, S.AL, in tlie Hawera. Court to-day, when William Hayward, farmer, of Normanby, appeared to defend j a claim for £ls 9s Id preferred against liimself and liis wife by Laurie Andrew Taylor, solicitor, of Hawera, for services rendered and moneys paid by him as the solicitor for defendants. Air. P. O’Dea appeared for plaintiff, while defendant, William Hayward, conducted liis side of the proceedings without the aid of counsel. Immediately tlie case was called William Hayward made application to have his wife’s name struck out of tlie proceedings, on the grounds that his wife had not been connected directly with the negotiations with the. solicitor. Tlie Alagistrate replied that the application would he noted and dealt with according to the evidence adduced.

SOLICITOR’S CONTENTION. In evidence plaintiff gave particulars of having been interviewed by William Haywarcl on February 6, 1928, with reference to a summons served against Airs. Hayward on a claim for £2 2s made by a Air. Lambert for services as a veterinary surgeon. Hayward and his wife had objected to payment of Lambert’s claim, and, as tlie result of evidence heard in Auckland and at Hawera, judgment had been given in favour of Airs. Hayward in the Hawera. Court in July. Plaintiff had had conferences with both Air. and Airs. Hayward in connection with the proceedings. He had telephoned Airs Hayward on several occasions, and seen her with Air. Hayward at their house. Also, witness had been engaged in connection with a. claim which lit was suggested should be preferred against Lambert for the value of the animal which had died following attention given by Lambert. In respect of that Lambert had finally paid £5, which, on the advice of witness, was accepted. The. requirements of the Law Practitioners Act had been complied with, said witness in reply to the Alagistrate.

Defendant William Hayward: When I interviewed you in the first place did I not tell you I was taking tlie case up on my own. Witness : No.

When I asked you, did you not say your bill would be £3 3s ?—That is not true.

AN ORIGINAL DEFENDANT

“I don’t see how Airs. Hayward.can be left out of the proceedings, as she was the defendant in the original action,” said the Alagistrate to defendant.

Defendant:. But Airs. Hayward declined to take any action in the court and I made the arrangement with Air. Taylor. Mr. Taylor: Although Air. Hayward first interviewed me, I subsequently had fi-equent conversations with Airs. Hayward, and it was not until to-day that I received any intimation that Airs. ITayward was not behind me in the original court proceedings.

Defendant was proceeding to direct further questions on the point when the Alagistrate informed him that the Court did not wish to hear anything further on it.

“13ut the.'whole charge was excessive,” said defendant. “It was for £23 on a. claim involving only £2 25.” The Magistrate replied that the present action was not one for taxing the bill of costs. That was not within the jurisdiction of the Court, but was a matter for the special proceedings provided for. He explained that special machinery was provided to deal with charges made hy solicitors, and a person who considered an overcharge had been made was better provided for than in the case of charges made in j respect of any other calling. “There is not the slightest ground for suggesting that Mrs. Hayward should be struck out of the proceedings,” said the Magistrate after further evidence, during which copies of letters forwarded to Mrs. Hayward were presented by plaintiff.

WIFE’S DENIAL. ' Defendant Emily Hayward stated in evidence that she had not telephoned to Mr. Taylor with reference to the claim made by Lambert, nor did she have any interviews or conversations of any kind with Mr. Taylor on the subject. “I had nothing whatever, to do with it. It was Mr. Hayward’s business,” said defendant when cross-examined by Mr. O’Dea.

1 Questioned concerning her action when the summons to appear in court was received by her, witness said she supposed she had given it to her husband.

A letter addressed to Mrs. Hayward with reference to the claim was shown to the Court, and witness said she thought it was addressed to Mr. Hayward, as the letter “s” was not very distinct.

Mr. O’Dea: But it commences with “Dear Madam.”

Witness': Weil I never read it. Mr. O’Dea: AVnat! You did notread a letter which was sent to you? Witness: No. I didn’t read it. If I had it I would have given it to Mr. Hayward. Asked concerning other letters, witness said she did not open letters which came to the house, but left them to her husband. Mr. O’Dea : Your husband has been declared bankrupt, has he not? —Yes.

PROTECTION TO DEBTOR

Addressing the Magistrate the defendant, William Hayward, asked if lie could apply to have the solicitor’s bill taxed.

The Magistrate replied that after rendering an account a solicitor could not take court action in less than a month. That term was allowed for application to have the amount taxed, and if such application was not made it was presumed the liability was admitted. Beyond that period, however, further protection was provided in that application could be made to a judge for special permission to have the costs taxed.

Giving evidence, defendant William Hayward recounted his original overtures. and maintained that he, and not his wife, had been responsible for the proceedings taken through Mr. Taylor. He considered that he and his wife were” being “fleeced.” Mr. O’Dea: You have had considerable experience in court proceedings, haven’t you, Mr. Hayward?

Witness: I’ve had to pay a couple of thousand pounds in court costs and you’ve had your share of it. Mr. O’Dea: But if I remember rightly our account was not paid. “The case looks to me to be like an attempt to place the liability on the husband, who has been declared bankrupt,” said the Magistrate. After reviewing the evidence he said he had no other course than to give judgment

for plaintiff. Judgment against both defendants was given in favour of plaintiff for the full amount claimed, court costs (£1 13s) and solicitor’s fee (£2 2s), bringing the total to £l9 14s Id.