Nicholl v Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1865 |
| Date | 11 February 1865 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 71 E.R. 592
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
S. C. 13 W. R. 451; 5 N. R. 361. See In re Brown, 1880, 42 L. T. 502; In re Worswick, 1888, 38 Ch. D. 372; Goldstone v. Williams [1899], 1 Ch. 52; Ainsworth v. Wilding [1900], 2 Ch. 320.
Practice. Production of Documents. Form of Summons. Solicitor's Brief. Shorthand Notes.
[588] nicholl v. jones. Feb. 10, 11, 1865. [S. C. 13 W. E, 451 ; 5 N. R. 361. See In re. Brmvn, 1880, 42 I,. T. 502; In re Warwick, 1888, 38 Oh. D. 372; Goldstam v. Williams [1899], 1 Ch. 52; Ainsworth v. Wilding [1900], 2 Ch. 320.] Practice. Production of Documents. Form of Summons. Solicitor's Brief. Shorthand Notes. The practice of raising questions as to the production of documents on a summons to consider the sufficiency of the affidavit is too firmly established to be disturbed, ' though, semble, not to be commended. Counsel's endorsement of an order of Court is pullici juris, and must be produced? but all notes made by counsel and all instructions given to him, whether by indorsement on his brief or by notes or observations within, are privileged, and may be sealed up. Notea made by a shorthand writer employed by one of the parties ordered to be produced so far as they merely describe what took place in open Court, but with liberty to seal up all notes or observations thereon, and all such parts thereof (if any) as did not relate to the proceedings in Court. This was an adjourned summons. The suit related to certain property in Wales, which had been the subject of much litigation, both in this Court and in the Court of Probate. Amongst others, the present Plaintiff and the Defendant, Eliza Jones, had instituted rival suits in the last-mentioned Court, for the purpose of establishing certain contending documents, each of which was put forward as the last will of one B. Nicholl. At the trial of the issues in the Plaintiff's suit (NirJioll v. Davies), a certain compromise was come to. Eliza Jones and her husband were not parties to this suit, but counsel appeared for them at the said trial, and, as the Plaintiff' alleged, were instructed to consent, and did consent, on their behalf, to the said compromise. David Davies, the Defendant to the probate suit, afterwards moved in that Court to rescind the compromise, which motion was rejected by the Court. The Plaintiff alleged that on that occasion counsel was instructed to oppose, and did oppose, the motion on behalf of Mr. aud Mrs. Jones. The parties having afterwards refused to carry out the compromise, and the Defen-dantSj Mr. and Mrs. Jones, having attempted to proceed in their own suit (Jones v. Davies), the present bill was filed against Mr. and Mrs, Jones, arid the representatives of D. Davies, for specific performance of the agreement to compromise. It appeared that, according to the practice of the Court [589] of Probate, which differs in that respect from the established rule in this Court, the orders of that Court contain no recital of the names of the parties appearing, or of the counsel heard, so that it could not be determined from the orders themselves whether counsel had or 2H. &M. 590. NICHOLL V. JONES 593 not appeared on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Jones on either of the occasions referred to, or, if so, how they had been instructed, and it therefore became necessary to prove the alleged attendance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.F.M. v P.W. (Legal professional privilege)
...181. Lyell v. Kennedy (1883) 9 App. Cas. 81; (1884) 27 Ch. D. 1. Nicholl v. Jones (1865) 3 Eq. 696; (1865) 13 W.R. 451; (1965) N.R. 361; 2 H. & M. 588. Nordon v. Defries (1882) 8 Q.B.D. 508. Rawstone v. Preston Corporation (1885) 30 Ch. D. 116. Smurfit Paribas Bank Ltd. v. A.A.B. Export Fin......