The Gazette 1914-15

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

JANUARY, 1915]

77

Recent Decisions affecting Solicitors. (Notes of decisions, whether in reported or unreported cases, of interest- to Solicitors, are invited from Members.}

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.] 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 CHANCERY DIVISION (ENGLAND). (Before Eve, J.) In re Hewitt; Hewitt v. Hewitt. Nov.

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,