Matchett v Parkes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 1842 |
| Date | 05 May 1842 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 325
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Dowl. (N. S.) 924; 11 L. J. Ex. 287; See In re Massey v. Carey, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 462.
[767] matgheit v. parkes. Exch. of Pleas. May 5, 1842.-On taxation of an attorney's bill, the Master has no jurisdiction to disallow items on the ground that in respect of the business to which they refer, the attorney was guilty of negligence. Where A. & B. delivered a bill in their joint names for business done as attorneys, and the Master, on taxation, disallowed part of the bill, on the ground that B. was not a certificated attorney during a portion of the time to which the bill referred, the Court, on affidavit that B.'s name was used at the request of friends, but that he was really not a partner with A., allowed A. to deliver a fresh bill in his own name only for the items so disallowed. [S. C. 1 Dowl. (N. S.) 924; 11 L. J. Ex. 287. See In re Mousey v. Carey, 1884, ò26 Ch. D. 462.] In this case the defendant had employed Messrs. J. K. Beswick and George Beswick as his attorneys, to conduct for him certain prosecutions for perjury, as well as on cither business. It appeared that between the 28th of May, 183cS, and the loth of November, 1839, (within which period a great part of the business wa,s done), George Beswick was not an attorney, but his name had been permitted, before his actual admission, to appear as the partner of hia brother, J. K. Beswick, at the desire of their friends. The indictments for perjury were ultimately quashed. Messrs. Beswick delivered a bill to the defendant in the names of both of them, amounting to 6941. Os. 9d., and it was referred to the Master for taxation. The defendant objected, before the Master, that the sum of 4741. Os. 3d. should be struck out of the bill, on the ground that it consisted of items for business done while George Beswick was not certificated as an attorney; and that the sum of 1671. 13s. lOd. should also be disallowed, on the ground that it was incurred in respect of the indictments, which, by the alleged negligence of the attorneys in preparing them, had been wholly useless to the defendant. The attorneys denied the negligence, and produced affidavits to anew that the indictments had been quashed by arrangement with the defendant. The Master, however, disallowed both the above sums, and thereby, after giving the defendant credit for sums received on his account, a balance was found to be due to him from Messrs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v Sherry
...S.) 441. Edmonson v. DavisENR 4 Esp. 14. Esposito v. BowdenENR 7 E. & B. 784. Kent v. WardUNK 70 L. T. (N. S.) 612. Matchett v. ParkesENR 9 M. & W. 767. Re SweetingELR [1898] 1 Ch. 268. Williams v. VereUNK 10 T. L. R. 477. Solicitor — Costs — 62 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1905. MARTIN v. SHERRY (1......
-
Matthews v Livesley
...and the allowance of such costs will afford a premium for negligence. There is no direct authority upon the point. Matchett v. Parkes (9 M. & W. 767), which was cited upon the motion for the rule, is not an authority in the plaintiff's favour, the question there being between attorney and c......