SUPREME COURT.—In Chambers.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XL, Issue 9195, 24 September 1891, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.— In Chambers.

W»dnbsdat, September 23.— Before C. C. ] Kattle, Esq., Registrar. ' HUTOHIBON V. fOWKLL. • This was an application by the sheriff, A. i H. Holmes, to be allowed to charge extra \ expenses incurred by him as Sheriff in connection with sale, under writ of sale i issued by the plaintiff against the defendant. Mr Govott appeared for the Sheriff, and Mr Roy for Mr Hutchison. Mr Govett, stated that the application was made, under the regulations in Gaeette, No 46 (April 10, 1884) page 655, in which it is stated that in any case where any Sheriff shall bo necessarily put to and incur extra trouble and expense in tho discharge of any duty incident to his office, he shall be entitled to such reasonable payment extra (i. c., in addition to scale allowance) as a Judge of the Supreme Court may upon special application allow. An affidavit by the Sheriff setting forth the facts upon which the application was forwarded, was read, and from which it appeared that owing to the peouliar and complicated nature of the defendants interests in the land which were tft be sold the Sheriff had to have special conditions of sale prepared, and had taken the advice of his solicitor on various matters connected with the sale. The total amount of the extra charges including conditions of sale being £7 7s. Mr Roy, on behalf of Mr Hutchison, contended that as the regulations referred to provided that the Sheriff could charge " for drawing conditions of sale of land 10s," no extra charges could be claimed. He also read an affidavit from Mr Hutohison, which had been filed, objecting to pay extra charges. Mr Roy also contended that it would have been sufficient for the Sheriff to sell " the interest, if any," of the defendant, and that it 'was not necessary for him to specify the nature of the interest to be sold. Mr Roy also took the objection that the motion by the Sheriff should have been by summonß and not by notice of motion. After argument the Registrar gave judgment as follows:— ln 'this case I am satisfied that the Sheriff was necessarily put to an incurred extra trouble and expense in connection with the sale, and that he is entitled to reasonable payment for such extra expense. It was, in ray opinion, the duty of the Sheriff to see, on behalf of both parties, that the sale was fairly conducted, and that the Sheriff should disclose to the public the nature of Mrs Powell's interests in the land which was to be sold. The Sheriff acted, I think, reasonably and properly in placing himself in the hands of his solicitor, and in taking his advice, as the circumstances connected with the case were of a somewhat special character. As to the amount claimed by the Sheriff no objection has been taken to any particular item, and inmy opinion the charges are fair and reasonable. As to tho objection that the present application should have been made by summons instead of notice of motion, no doubt the rules provide that all applications in Chambers shall be by summons, but as the plaintiff has appeared, and the objection is purely a technical one, and does no in any way affect the merits, I do not think it ought to prevail. The order will be that the Sheriff be allowed £7 7s (including the 10s to which he is entitled under the regulations) and Court fees connected with this application. Mr Roy, intimated that an application would probably be made to the Judge to review the Registrar's decision.