AN APPEAL DISMISSED.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 13859, 19 December 1912, Page 7

AN APPEAL DISMISSED.

INTERESTING LEGAL POINT. Decision of Deputy Registrar Disputed. Consequent on a decision of Mr Justice Cooper, the Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court, Mr C. A. Barton, proceeded to allot the Court costs aiid witnesses’ expenses. He refused to disallow' three witnesses their expenses. This refusal was disputed, and an appeal was lodged. Mr Justice Chapman reviewed the. decision, and uphold the Registrar’s .refusal. His judgment was as follows: “Summons to icview decision. There was a claim and a counter claim. Both were sustained at the trial before Mr Justice Cooper. The plaintiff succeeded on three items amounting to £57 18s. The defendants recovered £2i 12s 6d. On- the whole case, judgment passed for the plaintiff for £33 ds 6d, with solicitor’s fee £5 ss, Court costs and witnesses’ expenses to be ascertained by the Registrar. The plaintiff now complains that the Registrar has disallowed the expenses of three of his witnesses. It is not disputed that the evidence of these witnesses was exclusively applicable to questions on which the plaintiff failed. His counsel argues, however, that it is not the duty of the Registrar hut a function of the Court to allow or disallow such expenses, and that the duty of the Registrar is confined to certifying what expenses have been incurred with respect to those witnesses. That implies that he is not to consider the necessity for summoning or calling the witnesses with reference to the matters determined. The real question, however, arises on the interpretation of the judgment as to which I have no doubt. The expenses arc to be ascertained by the Registrar: that confides to 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 aed Registrars exercised in England and New Zealand before the present system came into force in virtue of general rules or of general practice. It may now he exercised hy the judge himself subject to the power of review, or hy the Registrar if the Judge so orders. Here it has bemi exercised and properly exercised hy the Registrar. If the Judge had ascertained the expenses himself ho 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, Treadwell, and Gordon.”