MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5580, 30 March 1886, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT:

CHRISTCHURCH. This Dat. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness, Ac. — Charles Parker admitted having been drunk in Chappel i street the previous night. Constable ! Kenny proved that the man had also made | use of obscene language. Fined 10s, or fortyj eight hours, for drunkenness, and ordered \ to be imprisoned till the rising of the I Court for the Becond offence. Two men, j who had not been convicted before, were fined 5b each, or twenty-four hours' im- | prisonment. Varying: an Order. — Mr Kippenberger obtained permission to apply for a variation of the order for the maintenance of children in the case of Pavey v. Merrie. I He appeared for the complainant, and said ! that the order, which was originally £2, j had been reduced to £1 by Mr Ollivier, R.M.. He contended that this variation , had been made under a misapprehension of i the facts, and desired that the amount | might be increased to the original sum. ' Mr Beetham said he would consult Mr Ollivier, and the case would come on on j Saturday. j CIVIL CASES. I Lawyeb's Cobtb. — The case of Austin v. £11 was a claim for £19 Os Bd, for legal services rendered. Plaintiff in person ; Mr Jellicoe, of Wellington, for defendant. The plaintiff's case had been closed the previous day, and Mr Jellicoe had moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that delivery of a bill of coßta to a client's solicitor's agent (as in this case) was not sufficient under section 27 of "The Law Practitioners' Act, 1882." Mr Beetham, who had reserved judgment, now Baid he would have to decline to nonsuit the plaintiff. The decision in Vincent v. Haymaker — one of the authorities cited by Mr Austin— waß | that delivery of a bill of costs to a solicitor i iB a delivery to his client when the solicitor is solicitor in the cause ; it is, at anyrate, thrown on the client to show that the solicitor has no authority to receive it. In the present case the delivery was not to the solicitor in the cause, but to the agent of the solicitor, and it was decided in re Bush ! (Be van's reports) that a person entitled to | the delivery of a bill of costs may appoint another to receive it. There was, at present, no question as to the non-receipt of the bill of costs by the defendant. Nonsuit declined. Mr Jellicoe, in opening his defence, said the Court would still have to | be satisfied that the bill of costs had been j delived to an agent of the defendant. i Though Mr Hoban had been acting as ' agent for Mr Lynch, Ell's solicitor, he would prove there was no privity between Hoban and Ell, and, therefore, no delivery of the bill of coats to Ell's agent. If the I Court held that delivery to Mr Hoban was | sufficient, it would then inquire into the < various matters connected with the claim, j The total amount of the bill had been £110 12s 6d, of which £40 11s lOd had been | paid, leaving, in plaintiff's estimation, ! the balances now claimed. Now £16 13a j lOd was for items alleged to be due before I the date of plaintiff's bankruptcy. Plaintiff's book debts were sold on April 24 last by the Official ABdignee to H. E. Nathan for £5, subsequently re-assigned by Mi Weston — Nathan's executor — to plaintiff; j but there was no proof that Ell (the j creditor) had notice of the former assign- ! merit, nor indeed of the hitter, before the • action was brought, therefore this amount I falls to the ground. £7 ISs 8d was fox ; items due to plaintiff between his adjudication and discharge, and this was clearly vested in the Official Assignee for the benefit of the creditors by section 7 of " The Bankruptcy Act of 1883." The more serious matter for Mr Austin was the claim he made for £6 2b Bd, for costs after his retainer was withj drawn in the actions Ell v. Harper j and Ell v. Harper and another. He main- ! tamed that Mr Austin had no right whatj ever to act for a client after his retainer i had been withdrawn. If a solicitor dared ! do anything after his retainer ceases, he 1 does so at his own peril, and must take the 1 consequences that would probably follow. ■ Learned counsel went on to object to other 1 items in the bill, especially one for £5 6s for "many attendances," charged in a lump sum, when the particular items were not specified, and other attendances were specifically mentioned in the bill. Mr Austin said it waa usual to make such a charge in all bills of costs. The question arose as to the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the items. Mr Beetham said that, while it was not, perhaps, the province of this Court to tax I a bill of costs, still as the case was before . him, unless he was free to Bay whether : each item in the bill was one upon which [ plaintiff ought or ought not to recover, it ; waß a farce hearing the case. George | Waldock Ell : Never received any bill of j costs from Mr Hoban's office. Never employed him as agent or solicitor. Employed i Lynch, of Timaru, in Ell v. Harper No. 2. Mr Lynch was never placed on the ; record. Never had the bills of costs till | received them annexed to the eummonß. i Went to Mr Hoban's office last year. Saw Mr Hoban, who said there had been a , bill of costs rendered to him by 'Mr Austin. He said, " You may look it over if you choose and sign it as correct." Said I would not. Had never '■ Been it from that day. Never gave Mr Hoban authority to get the bill of costs from plaintiff. Some months after saw Mr ' Austin at his office, and applied for a copy of the bill. Plaintiff said he would give I no further papers at all, nor any infor- | mation. Told Mr Austin the reason for withdrawing the retainer was because he I had neglected my interests, especially in I the action No. 2. Did not then know any- ■ thing of the Registrar's certificates. I Withdrew plaintiff's retainer on Feb. 4. What Mr Austin had done had not benefitted mo ; it caused me over i a year's misery. Wrote to plaintiff on March 14, warning him against ; applying for judgment in Ell v. Harper. } In spite of all I could do ho went on and 1 got the judgment and his costs. He also j allowed the adoption of a certificate againßt £2166. I stand wrong by Mr Austin's ! action to the extent of £3200. Had seen ! receipts which showed that plaintiff had | received £370 from the Harpers. Received j a letter from Duncan, Cottorill, and Martin re a claim by Delamain under a bill of sale. One of Harper and Company's clerks brought the letter. Told Mr Austin that the best plan would be to explain that the bill of sale had been cancelled for a long time. He said, " You leave that to mo ; that's my harvest; it" people choose* to bring such things as theee forward let them pay for it." [Left sitting, j