The Gazette 1917-18

JANUARY, 1918]

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

57

If over 50 and not exceeding 75 copies . . . . . . If over 75 and not exceeding 100 copies . . . . 6 During the continuance of the present war and .for a period of six months thereafter these charges shall take effect. 132 14 Recent Decision affecting Solicitors, (Notes of decisions, whether in -reported or unreported cases, of interest to Solicitors, are invited from Members.) KING'S BENCH DIVISION (ENGLAND). (Before Avory, J.) Stezvart-Moore v. Sprague. Nov. 24, 1917.— Solicitor — Promissory note given by client in respect of untaxed bill of costs—Promissory note dishonoured— Right of Solicitor to judgment for full amount of promissory note. Action set down for trial under Order XIV., R. 8. The action was brought by Mr. Henry Stewart-Moore, a Solicitor, against Mr. W. G. R. Sprague, an architect, to recover .£80 on a promissory note dated June 2ist, 1917, payable three months after date, and dishonoured at maturity. The defendant had for some years had transactions with money-lenders, and the plaintiff had acted for him in various pro ceedings arising out of those transactions. The plaintiff had delivered bills of costs from time to time, and on May 4th last delivered a bill for £163 I2s. id., which had not yet been taxed. The defendant called upon the plaintiff, who, after a discussion, agreed to accept two promissory notes, one the note now sued upon, and another which had not yet become due. The case for the plaintiff was that the promissory notes were intended to be a final settlement between the parties, and that the defendant could not now ask for taxation of

the bill. If he wanted taxation he ought to apply for it by summons, and in the meantime the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on the note now sued upon (Ray v. Newton (1913), i K.B., 249). For the defendant it was contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to judgment for ;£8o, as the bill of costs had not yet been taxed. As the dispute was one between the maker and the payee of the note, the Court could go behind the note and see whether there had been a total or partial failure of consideration. There had been a part failure at least, for on taxation something would have to be taken off the bill. The note, therefore, could not be treated as having been given in final settlement (Sayer v. Wagstaff (1844), L. J. Ch., 116). The creditor by accepting a promissory note only gave extended credit, and there was no settlement of the original debt until the note was actually paid. The defendant, therefore, was entitled to have the bill of costs taxed before paying the note. Avory, J., gave judgment for the plaintiff for £80. He had not materials before him to enable him to say whether the defendant was entitled to taxation of the bill of costs, and he expressed no opinion about it. The defendant was asking that judgment should be given on the note less some amount which it was quite impossible to arrive at. To arrive at the amount it would be necessary to decide whether the defendant was entitled to taxation of the bill of costs, and also how much would come off the bill on taxation. Ray v. Newton (supra) was an authority which showed that whether the defendant was entitled to taxation or not the plaintiff must now have judgment on the note. See also Glennie v. Imri (1839), 3 Y. & C., 436. (Weekly Notes, December 8th, 1917, page 367). ALL communications connected with THE GAZETTE (other than advertisements) should be addressed to the Secretary of the Society, Solicitors' Buildings, Four Courts, Dublin.