The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-12-11 00:00:00

INTERESTING TO SOLICITORS.

In the Rolls Court. in London, in the matter of Richard
Bevan Jones (a solicitor), the case involved a Question of
considerdde interest to attorneys and solicitors which has
not hitherto been the subject of judicial decision, and was u
follows:

It aupears that a client of Mr. Jones had obtained
the common order to tax his hill in respect of the
costs of litigation conduoted by him in the year 1867,
thereby submitting in the usual manner to pay what
should be found to be due from him to Mr. Jones.
When the bill cares to be taxed, the taxing-master
disallowed all the charges for business done in the
suit during the first three months of 1867, on the
ground that during that period Mr. Jones had been
uncertificated, which woo the fact; Mr. Jones, by pure
accident, and through no fault of his own, hut by
the default of his town agents, having been without
a certificate during that period. Mr. Jones accordingly
took out a summons that the taxing-ruaster might be
directed to review his taxation, with the object of
getting these items allowed and this 13111111101118 was
now adjourned from chambers into court. Mr. Jones's
client did not deny that the business had been done for
which the charges were made, but relied on the Act 6
and 7 Victoria, chap. 73, sec. 26, which provides that
no person who as an attorney or solicitor shall sue,
prosecute, defend, or carry on any action or suit, or
any preceedings in any of the courts without having
previously obtained a stamped certificate which shall
be then in force, shall be capable of maintaining any
action or suit at law or in equity for the recovery of
any fee, reward, or disbursement for or in respect of
any business, matter, or thing done by him as attorney
or solicitor while he shall have been without such certi-
ficate. _ .

Mr. Jesse], Q.C., and Mr. Bevir appeared in support
of the summons. Mr. Begg opposed it on behalf of
the client.

aoros.
His Lordship said that the enactment was a penal
enactment, awl must be construed strictly. It was to
he ob.erved that the Act did not extinguish the debt,
but only took away the remedy, and this, as in other
cases, was a distinction of importance. Of the authori-
ties referred to by Mr. Berg, who had taten great
pains with the case, the most material was the case of
Foliolove v. Parker," whence it appeared that Mr.
Justice Willes was of the same opinion namely,
that the debt itself was not extinguished by the
Act. It remained for him to consider whether
the present proceeding was a proceeding for re-
covery of the fees within the meaning of the Act.
This he was of opinion it was not, though he guarded
himself from expressing an opinion as to what the
effect would be undi r the circumstances if the soli itor
had taken the initiative. This order had been obtained
by the client on c ndition of paying what should as
found due from hinn; and in his opinion the Act did
not take away the debt, or deprive the solicitor of the
right to set it off or retain in respect of it money
already paid to him. The matter would, therefore, be
referred back to the taxing-master, who had came to a
wrong dee sion though warranted by the invariable
practice in his Office.