The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-02 00:00:00

FISHER V. PRYME AND OTHERS.

Mr. KELLY appeared to show cause against a rule
obtained by Sir P. Pollock, for the purpose of having
the Master's taxation reviewed. The Learned Gent'e-
man said this was an action for libel in which the
plaintiff, a most respectable banker in Cambridge, had
had perjury imputed to him--it was altogether a gross
case, and the plaintiff would undoubtedly have ob-
tained large damages. But upon the cause being
called on, the Learned Judge, Mr. Baron Alder-
son, suggested a compromise, and it coaling from
such a quarter was acted upon, upon an understanding
that the plaintiff was to be paid his full costs. That
understanding was now denied ; but could any of their
Lordships doubt, for one moment, that a plaintiff stand-
ing in such an advantageous position would have consented
to withdraw his case from the consideration of a Jury,
who no doubt would have given large damages
upon any other terms than a complete indem-
nification from all costs. He swore that those were
his instructions to his attorney, and the latter swore that
the understanding at the arrangement of the case was
that the costs should be as between attorney and client.
The Master had so taxed them, and he hoped the
Court would not interfere, and so fine the plaintiff, who
had been the injured party, to the amount of 1501.

. -
Sir F. POLLOCK said that in the hearing of' so many
of his brethren he was happy to say that ever since
he had had the honour of filling a place in the part of
the Court he then occupied (before the Bar), he had
never signed a brief allowing a client of his to pay costs
as between attorney and client—he insisted upon having
a sum named which his Opponent would be satis-
fied with, and let the costs be taxed in the
usual way. He denied most positively that it was ever
a matter of course that the costs should be otherwise
taxed, unless the briefs were so endorsed. No arrange-
ment could be madelby the attorneys for such a purpose.
It was positively sworn that the arrangement was the
usual one, and agreed to by the attorney for the plaintiff ;
he had to answer that affidavit, and what did he say
in his most glib affidavit ? Why that if he had ever
made such an agreement it must have been by way
of a joke. There was no joke, however, in
his other proceedings. The manner in which
costs had been heaped up in this libel case was
a libel upon the administration of justice. He
knew not where the fault, rested, but in this case
where all parties knew that there was no justifi-
cation, and that the only defence would be an
utter disclaimer, that the plaintiff was the party
attacked, the costs amounted to no less than 350/. ;
the expence of the declaration alone was 401. ; and to
prove that the party attacked was the respectable
and well-known Conservative Mayor of Cambridge
and banker, which might have been done, if at all
possible, by five hundred persons in Cambridge,
witnesses were brought from the most remote parts of
the kingdom. Bat the fact of the briefs being signed
in the usull manner, and that hii affidavits were not
in any way contradicted, would induce the Court to
make the rule absolute.

The COURT referred it to the Master to have laid
before him the indorsements on the brief's held by the
respective counsel at the trial, and to report the same
to the Court.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRB, 1.
(Sittings in WitICO.