Cook v Gillard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 1852 |
| Date | 08 November 1852 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 118 E.R. 346
COURTS OF QUEEN'S BENCH, AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 22 L. J. Q. B. 90; 17 Jur. 137. Not followed, Roy v. Turner, 1855, 4 W. R. 126. Adhered to, Haigh v. Ousey, 1857, 7 El. & Bl. 582. See Cobbett v. Wood, [1908] 1 K. B. 595; [1905] 2, K. B. 420.
[26] cook against gillard. Monday, November 8th, 1852. A bill of costs, delivered under stat. 6 & 7 Viet. c. 73, s. 37, contained some items for proceedings such as would take place in the Superior Courts, and contained nothing to shew 1&L.&BL.37, COOK V. GILLARD 347 in which of the Superior Courts the business took place. Held : that the bill was sufficient. [S. C. 22 L. J. Q. B. 90; 17 Jur. 137. Not followed, Boy v. Turner, 1855, 4 W. K. 126. Adhered to, Haigh v, Ousey, 1857, 7 El. & Bl. 582. See Oof/bell v. Wood, [1908] 1 K. B. 595; [1908] 2 K. B. 420.] Debt lor work and labour, &c. as a solicitor. Pleas. 1. Never indebted. 2. As to 161., parcel, &e., payment. 3. Set-off. 4. No signed bill delivered. 5. As to part, the Statute of Limitations. Replication: issue joined on the first plea; nolle prosequi as to the 161,; and traverses of the 3d, 4th and 5th pleas. On which traverses issues were joined. On the trial, before Wightman J., at the Westminster sittings in Trinity terra 1852, it appeared that the plaintiff had in due time delivered to the defendant a bill, headed "Richard Gillard Esq. Dr. To George William Francis Cook;" and signed by the plaintiff. The items in the bill were divided into four parts. The first part was headed "Yourself and Bansom." It consisted of a charge for attending the defendant and consulting as to slanderous reports ; and then, under a fresh head, "Hilary term 1846," there were charges for "letter before action," "instructions to sue," "writ of summons," and "attending settling." The amount of this first part of the bill was 21. 19s. 8d. Except in so far as might be inferred from the items above quoted, there was nothing to shew whether the suit of Gillard v. Hansom had been pending in any, or which, of the Superior Courts. The second part of the bill appeared from the items to be for conducting the defence of a case at the Middlesex Sessions; it amounted to 91. Is. 6d. The third part appeared on the face of it to be for [27] Conducting a prosecution at the Middlesex Sessions ; it amounted to 451. 13s. 6d. The fourth part of the bill was headed "Yourself and Mrs. Heydeman." It contained charges for taking the opinion of counsel on the construction of an agreement, various charges for collecting evidence and making enquiries at Hatton Garden, Tottenham Court Road, and other places well known to be in Middlesex, but which were not stated on the face of the bill to be there: for " instructions to sue in an action on the case;" for "writ" and "service"; for attending in Court, when on motion by counsel "a rule was made to refer all matters in dispute;" and for attending the reference. The amount of this head of the bill was 1221. 8s. lOd. Except in so far as might be inferred from the items above quoted, there was nothing to shew whether the cause of Gillard \. Heydeman had been pending in any, or which, of the Superior Courts. The bill then repeated these four sums, with a reference to the page of the bill on which each appeared, summing up the total 1801. 3s. 6d., and concluded: "This is my bill of costs amounting to 1801. 3s. 6d. "12 Feby. 1852. "G. W. F. cook. "Vestry Offices, Old Saint Pancras Road, St. Pancras, Middlesex." The bill had, before trial, been sent to taxation without prejudice : and it was agreed at the trial that, partly from the amount struck off, and partly by an admitted set-off, the plaintiff's claim was reduced to 1001.; which was the sum he was entitled to recover supposing that the bill was sufficient. [28] It was contended for the defendant that the first and last parts of the bill were insufficient, as they did not shew in what Courts the business there charged for was transacted ; and therefore that the bill, being one entire bill, was not sufficient as to any part. For the plaintiff it was contended that the bill was sufficient for the whole; or, if not, that it was divisible and good pro tanto. The learned Judge directed a nonsuit, with leave to the plaintiff to move to set it aside, and enter a verdict for 1001. or such portion of the bill of costs as the Court should think reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haskell Elias v Wallace LLP
...of the 1974 Act. Ward LJ summarised the authorities: 63 I accept the principle expressed in Lord Campbell CJ's judgment in Cook v Gillard 1 E & B 26, 36–37 that: the defendant who undertakes to prove that the bill is not a bona fide compliance with the Act cannot found an objection upon wan......
-
Genevieve Ugochi Iwuanyawu v Ratcliffes Solicitors
...Act 1974. Ward LJ summarised the authorities: 63 I accept the principle expressed in Lord Campbell CJ's judgment in Cook v Gillard 1 E & B 26, 36–37 that: the defendant who undertakes to prove that the bill is not a bona fide compliance with the Act cannot found an objection upon want of in......
-
Dr Mehrdad Rahimian and Another v Allan Janes LLP
...Act 1974. Ward LJ summarised the authorities: 63 I accept the principle expressed in Lord Campbell CJ's judgment in Cook v Gillard 1 E & B 26, 36–37 that: the defendant who undertakes to prove that the bill is not a bona fide compliance with the Act cannot found an objection upon want of in......
-
John Haigh v John Ousey and Others
...I adopt the rule as to this, laid down in Keene v. Ward (13 Q. B. 515) before I was a member of this Court, and in Cook v. Gillanl (1 E. & B. 26) to which I was a party. The view taken by my brother Patteson in Keene v. Ward (13 Q. B. 515) seems very sensible. He says : "In requiring the de......