254 / 266
jurisdiction to overrule the decision o f the taxing
master, and the expenses would be allowed.
(ii) The £ 2 1 which the taxing master had allowed
as compensation to the country solicitor in respect
o f attendances in London ought not to be included
as part of aft addition to the sum allowed on the
instructions for the main brief but should be allowed
and distributed among the specific items to which
it related.
(iii) Instructions for the examination of a witness
on commission were different from instructions on
the main brief and the fee for the former should
not have been included in the amount allowed for
the latter; the fee o f £3 3s. for instructions on the
examination would be allowed.
(iv) On the facts the supplemental instructions
to counsel were justified and the fee for them
should have been distinct from the fee allowed for
instructions for the main b rief; accordingly, a fee
o f
£
26 5s. would be allowed in respect of the
supplemental instructions.
(v) The decision o f the taxing master to reduce
the fee for instructions on the main brief from
£630 to £2 10 was within his discretion over the
quantum o f costs, the difference in amount was not
such as o f itself to show that the discretion had
not been exercised properly, and the court had no
jurisdiction to interfere with his decision.
Per Harman, J . :
“ The taxing master was
entitled, I think, to take into account the fact that,
when the certificate was given, the solicitor did
not start entirely
de novo.
He was also, I think,
entitled to take into consideration the fact that,
although a lot o f time must have been spent on the
work, no details were given. After all, however,
the amount o f a fee for work of this sort is not given
according to how many half hours were spent.
The fee is a guess at its worth. It seems to me that
the taxing master’s guess is quite as good as another’s
and very much better than anything o f mine would
be, because he is very much more experienced.
I cannot say whether or not two hundred guineas
is the sort of fee which ought to be allowed on this
sort o f occasion. Before I could reject the decision
o f the taxing master that, in the circumstances, two
hundred guineas was the proper amount to allow, I
should have to be satisfied that that was not an
amount which any reasonable taxing officer could
assess, and I can find no possible basis on which
I can do that. The taxing officer knows much better
than I do how these things go.
“ The present case was a remarkable one. The
defendant’s bill of costs was brought in for some
£2,400, and o f that the taxing master disallowed
about £1,100 . The defendant’s solicitor says, in
effect, that such a disallowance shows, on its face,
that the taxing master was not exercising a judicial
discretion. I felt bound to reject that plea because
I do not think that there is any evidence to support
it.” (Theocharides
v.
Joannou (195 5) 1 All E . R. 615).
WATERFORD LAW SOCIETY.
T
he
Annual General Meeting o f the Waterford
Law Society was held on the 21st February when
matters o f interest to the profession in the County
were reviewed.
The following officers for the current year were
elected—
President—Mr. Kevin J. O’Shaughnessy ; Hon.
Secretary and Treasurer—Mr. Matthew J. Lardner ;
Committee—Messrs. D. R. Counahan, Kevin
Nugent, George A. Nolan, Peter J. O’Connor and
Fergus Power.
LAW COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA
T
he
Society has been notified by the President
of
the above Council that the Ninth Legal Convention
o f the Council will be held at Brisbane, Australia,
from July 19th to 24th. Any members o f this
Society who may be in Australia at that time will
be welcomed at the Convention. Arrangements
can be made to provide hotel accommodation for
overseas visitors if notice is given before the end
o f May to the Assistant-Secretary, The Law Council
o f Australia, Box No. 407F., G.P.O., Brisbane,
Australia.
RECENT LEGAL LITERATURE.
P
art
II.—August, 1954 to January, 1955.
Accidents in Parks and Recreation Grounds :
“ Lewis
v.
Carmarthen, C.C.” (L .T ., 24th
December, 1954).
Adoption—Some Aspects of the Law o f
(The
Solicitor,
January, 1955).
Beccaria (L .T ., 28th January, 1955).
Cash held to be good security instead o f bond :
“ United Africa Co.
v.
Owoade ” (L .T ., 14th
January, 1955).
Classless Society—-Interpretation o f “ Working
Class ” (L .T ., 14th January, 1955).
Collateral Powers : “ Re Coates deed.—Ramaden
v.
Coates ”
(S.J.,
22nd January, 1955).
Colonial Constitution (Singapore)—Making of
(Hood Phillips)
(L.J
2
-R.,
January, 1955).
Comparative Aspects o f Undisclosed Agency (Muller
Freienfels)
(N.L.R.,
January, 1955).
Communications without Prejudice
(The Solicitor,
January, 1955).
Conseil d’Etat—Executive Discretion in France