89 / 120
JANUARY, 1915]
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
77
Recent Decisions affecting Solicitors.
(Notes of decisions, whether in reported or
unreported cases, of interest- to Solicitors,
are invited from Members.}
CHANCERY DIVISION (ENGLAND).
(Before Neville, J.)
In re R. P. Morgan & Co.
Nov. 19, 1914.—
Solicitor—Costs
—
Taxation—
Case for Counsel before litigation—Perusing
particulars—Schedule
of
documents
on
change of Solicitors—Solicitor and client—
General Order, Solicitors Remuneration Act,
1881 (44 6- 45
Vict., c.
44),
r.
2,
Sched.
11—
Rules of the Supreme Court,
1883,
Appendix
N.—Practice notes of masters.
R. P. MORGAN & Co., a firm of Solicitors at
Neath, were employed by a Mrs. Price in
certain matters, and by her instructions
commenced an action against her former
Solicitors for negligence. After the pleadings
were closed, Mrs. Price withdrew her retainer
from R. P. Morgan & Co. and employed
another firm of Solicitors. R. P. Morgan &
Co. in due course delivered their bill of costs
to Mrs. Price, and on its taxation before the
Master the following items (amongst others)
were objected to :—
1. A charge of
£2
6s., being 2s. per folio
for " drawing case for opinion of Counsel "
before litigation. The objection was that the
charge should be Is. per folio, because it was
not conveyancing business within Schedule 11
of the General Order of the Solicitors Remune
ration Act, 1881. The Master held that
In re
Mahon
(1893), 1 Ch. 507, applied, and over
ruled the objection.
2. A charge of 6s. 8d.
" for perusing
particulars delivered " in the action.
The
objection was that the particulars were four
folios in length and should be charged at 4d. a
folio, pursuant to Practice Note in Appendix
N.
The Master was of opinion that the
dictum
of Vaughan Williams, L.J.,
in
Milbank
-v.
Milbank
(1900),
1 Ch.
376,
applied, and overruled the objection.
3. A charge of 10s. for " drawing schedule
of
deeds
to
be handed
to
your new
Solicitors."
The objection was that the
charge was improper :
In re Catlin,
18 Beav.
508.
The Master overruled the objection,
being of opinion that the Solicitors were
entitled to the Schedule at the cost of the
client.
Mrs. Price took a summons to review the
Taxing Master's decision.
Neville, J., affirmed the decision of the
Taxing Master oh all
these points, and
dismissed the summons with costs.
'
(Reported
The Weekly Notes,
December
5th, 1914, p. 450.)
[NOTE.—The dictum of Vaughan Williams,
L.J., in
Milbank v. Milbank
(1900), 1 Ch.,
p. 385, is:—" Such particulars are really
supplemental to the plea dings; they are in
fact amendments of the pleadings." The
fee in Appendix S. of the Supreme Court
(Ireland) Rules,
1905,
is :—" Perusal of
amendment of pleading, 5/-, or, at Solicitor's
option, 4d. per folio."
As regards item 3 in above case, the fees
chargeable in Ireland would appear to be : —
Drawing Schedule of Deeds or Documents
for each page of 28 lines, 3/4 ; copy 1 /6.]
CHANCERY DIVISION (ENGLAND).
(Before Eve, J.)
In re Hewitt; Hewitt
v.
Hewitt.
Nov.
25,
1914.—
Trust—Public Trustee—
Foreign settlement
—
Appointment of trustee
—Whether Public Trustee competent.
The Public Trustee is not a competent
trustee of any settlement other than an
English settlement.
This
adjourned
summons
raised
the
question whether the Public Trustee could be
appointed trustee of a Scottish or foreign
settlement. The settlement was in Scottish
form ;
it contained an investment clause •
which did not fit the Public Trustee, but
contained no express power to appoint new
trustees.
It also contained provisions which
were unknown to English lawyers, and the
original trustees were Scotsmen. At present,
however, the trustees were English, all the
beneficiaries were English, and the trust
funds were invested in English securities.
Mr. Justice Eve, in giving judgment, said
that the question was whether the Public
Trustee was a competent trustee of
the
settlement, and this involved the general