The Gazette 1949-1952

it, except a clause that the purchaser should pay the vendors’ costs. On October 7th the trustees’ solicitor wrote to the beneficiaries informing them o f the proposed sale to Mrs. Simpson. On October 19th one of the beneficiaries called on the trustees’ solicitor and informed him that he was interested, in purchasing the property on behalf o f a charity. On October 20th, Mrs. Simpson’ s solicitors agreed to pay the vendors’ costs, making a total o f £6,142 and the vendors’ solicitors thereupon wrote to the plaintiff informing him of the trustees’ final decision to sell the property to Mrs. Simpson. At the last moment, when all the negotiations had been completed, but before the contract had been signed, the plaintiff came in with an offer o f £6,500. The trustees’ solicitors refused to accept the offer on the ground that having regard to the position o f the negotiations with Mrs. Simpson, they felt it would not be proper to cancel the negotiations. On hearing of the plaintiff’s application, Wynn-Parry, J. decided that it is the duty of trustees selling property to obtain the best price possible in the interest o f the beneficiaries. It was true that persons who are not in the position of trustees are entitled, if they so desire, to accept a lesser price than that which they might obtain on the sale o f property, and not infrequently a vendor .who had gone some lengths in negotiating with a prospective purchaser, decided to close the deal with purchaser notwithstanding that he was presented with a higher offer, which redounded to his credit. Trustees, however, were not vested with such complete freedom. They had an over­ riding duty to obtain the best price they could for their beneficiaries. In the case before him, his view was that the trustees and their solicitors acted on an incorrect principle in not fully probing the genuine­ ness of the plaintiff’s offer o f £6,500 before deciding to close the sale with Mrs. Simpson. In the result, he made an order for the payment o f the costs o f all parties out o f the proceedings o f the sale of the property, and as Mrs. Simpson came in with a final offer of £6,600 gave the trustees liberty to sell to her at that figure. Drawing o f Agreements by Accountants At Bradford City Magistrates’ Court, on 13 th June, an accountant, James Edward Hartley, was fined £44 5s. with £26 5s. costs for drawing an agreement under seal for the purpose o f converting a partnership into a limited company. He had charged £24 5s. for the work. For the defence and in mitigation on a plea o f guilty, it was pointed out that if a seal had not been attached no prosecution could have been brought, that it was a “ trivial

technicality,” and that the defendant had not charged more than a solicitor would have done. Prosecuting for the Law Society, Mr. J. Stanley Snowden pointed out that as a result o f the defendant having drawn the agreement, the parties might be put to the expense o f High Court litigation. The stipendiary magistrate, Dr. Coddington, said that the defendant was an accountant of good reputation in Bradford and had practised for many years. There could be no suggestion that he had done an illegal thing through any kind o f sheer stupidity or inadvertence. We feel that it is necessary to state that it is a complete error to describe either the rule or any offence against it as either trivial or a technicality. Whether more or less than a solicitor’s fee is charged is quite irrelevant. The fact remains that for others to charge for this class of work is an illegal encroachment on work which, for the best o f reasons, was allocated to solicitors exclusively. —( Solicitor’s Journal, 24th June, 1950.) Taxation o f Costs—Discretion o f the Taxing Master Coon v. Diamond Tread Company (1938), Limited, (Wynn-Parry, J .—June 6th) On an inquiry as to damages, an official referee awarded the plaintiff a sum of £ 10 ,54 1, together with costs, which he directed should be taxed. The inquiry at which the plaintiff was represented by leading counsel and junior counsel, lasted for four and a half days. A bill of costs brought in by the plaintiff was reduced by the taxing master in respect o f the figure included in the bill on the item “ In­ structions for brief,” the fees and refreshers to leading counsel and junior counsel, and the fees of the accountants whose services had been retained and used at the inquiry. The plaintiff objected to the reductions on the ground that the fees allowed were inadequate, and asked for the decision of the taxing master to be reviewed. Held—The Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision o f the taxing master since the complaint went to quantum only, and it had not been shown that the taxing master had erred on a question of principle. In re Ogilvie (103, L.T.Rep. 15 4 ; (1910) P. 243) and White v. Altrincham Urban District Council (154 L.T.Rep. 656; (1936) (2 K .B . 138) followed. In re Lindsay’s Estate (1915) W.N. 246) explained. —(The Law Times, 23rd June, 1950). 17