INTERESTING LEGAL POINT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Issue 12857, 19 December 1912, Page 8

INTERESTING LEGAL POINT.

AN APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF DEPUTY REGISTRAR.

APPEAL DISMISSED

In pursuance of a recent decision of Mr. Justice Cooper, the Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court (Mr. C. A. Barton) proceeded to allot the Court ccsts and witnesses' expenses. His refusal to disallow three witnesses their expenses was disputed and an appeal .was lodged. The decision of Mr. Justice Chapman in the appeial case, W. B. Cox v. A. iE. Symss and another, has come to hand and the Deputy Registrar's action has been upheld. Mr. Justice Chapman's judgment,is as'follows : —

"Summons to .review decision. There wao a claim iand a counter-claim. Both were sustained at the trial before Mr. Justice-Cooper." The plaintiff succeeded on three items amounting to £57 lgis. The deOendarits recovered £24 12s 6d. ' On the whole case, judgment passed for the plaintiff for £33 os 6d, with solicitor's fee £5 ss. Court costs and witnesses' expenses' to be- ascertained b ythe Registrar. The plaintiff now complains that the Registrar has disallowed the expenses of three of his w-itn'3ssc/j. It is nojt deputed 'that the evidence of these witnesses was exclusively applicable to questions on which tho plaintiff failed. His counsel argues, however, that it is not the duty of the Registrar but a function of the Court to allow or disallow such expenses and that the duty of the Registrar is confined to certifying what expences ,have been incurred ■with _■ respect to those.witnesses. That implies that he is not to consider the necessity for summoning or calling the .witnesses witli' reference to the matters determined. The real question, however, ariscra on the interpretation of the judgment as to which I have no doubt. The expenses are to be ascertained by tho Registrar: that confides 1o him the judicial duty of ascertaining what expenses have been properly incurred and delegates to him the whole faculty of so doing. This is the duty which" masters and registrars exercised in England and New Zealand 'before the present system came into force in virtue of general rule's or of general practice. It may now be exercised by the judge himself subject to the power of review, or by the Registrar if the Judge so orders. Here it has been exercised and properly exercised by the Registrar. If the Judeo had ascertained the expenses himself he would certainly have disallowed these items as the Registrar has done. .Summons dismissed. 'Costs £2 2s. Solicitor for plaintiff, G. Hutchison; solicitor-for defendant, Barnicoat Tread well and Gordon."