The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-10 00:00:00

PARTE BASS.

This petition has occupied the Court the greater part of
three days. It is presented by Mr. Michael Thomas Bass,
of Burton-upon-Trent, brewer, a shareholder in and member
of the acting committee of Remington's Company, and it
stated that in April, 1845, the London and Manchester Direct
Independent Railway Company was projected, and was and
is known as Remington's Company, which was duly and pro- I
visionally registered, and a committee of management was
appointed, and that Sir George Stephen and his partner, Mr.
B. W. Hutchinson, and Messrs. Rogers, Cobbett, Wilson,
and Owens were appointed joint solicitors. That in May,
1845, the Direct London and Manchester Railway was pro-
jected, and was and is known as Rastrick's Company, and
the committee of Remington's company wished in October
following to amalgamate the two, but were opposed by the
solicitors, except Mr. Owens, who was employed in such
amalgamation, which was effected on the 25th of that month.
The terms of this were, that a joint committee of the two
companies, of which the petitioner was a member, should
apply to Parliament for an Act to construct Reming-
ton's line, and that Rastrick's line should be abandoned,
and notice was given to the solicitors not to insert Parlia-
mentary notices relating to any application regarding Re-
mington's Company alone. On the Bth of November the act-
ing committee of Remington's Company paid 500/. to Messrs.
Stephen and Hutchinson, 5001. to Mr. Owens, 500/. to Mr.
Rogers, and 5001. to Messrs. Wilson and Cobbett, on ac-
count of costs, but no bills of costs had been delivered. On
the 13th of November the solicitors (exept Mr. Owens) in-
serted the notices they had been directed not to insert, and
were accordingly dismissed from their office of solicitors from
that day. At this time the plans, sections, and books of re-
ference of Remington's line were in the hands of Stephen
and Hutchinson and Rogers and Cobbett, and which it was
necessary should be deposited at the office of the Board of
Trade on or before the 30th, and after some negotiation the
acting committee of Remington's line agreed to pay them
28,000/., exclusive of any costs due to Mr. Wilson and Mr.
Owens, and accordingly a cheque for 18,000/. was drawn in
favour of Stephen and Hutchinson, 5,000/. in favour of Mr.
Rogers, and 5,0001. in favour of Mr. Cobbett, which, after
some delay, caused by steps taken by Mr. Meteyard, one of
the directors who signed them, were ultimately paid, and the
plans, sections, and books of reference given up and duly de-
posited. Receipts in full of all demands were given for these
sums, and added to them was a memorandum in these words :

—" It being clearly understood that all claims and questions
are this day finally-isettiW ana e, concha—a.
us and the London and Manchester Direct and Independent
Railway Company, and we have severally given receipts in
full of all demands; upon this understanding we promise to
deliver a bill of costs with all practicable speed, the delivery
of them hereafter being one of the conditions of the settle-
ment, and that settlement proceeding on the basis that
all differences, whether pecuniary or otherwise, are
finally and amicably adjusted by payment of the sums
which we have respectively received. Dated this 22d
day of November, 1845." The petition prayed the de-
livery of, and it was insisted by the counsel for the peti-
tioner that the solicitors were bound to deliver, a bill of all
such fees and disbursements as they claimed to be due in all
matters wherein they had been employed as solicitors for
Remington's Cempany, and that the same ought to be
taxed, the petitioner being willing and offering to pay what,
upon taxation, should be reported due, and that the solici-
tors ought to account, not only for the original 2,0001., com-
posed of the four sums of 5001. each, but for the 28,0001.
The principal respondents insisted that the costs were not
such costs as were taxable under the Act 7 Victoria, relating
to taxation of costs, for that the services rendered were not
of a mere professional character, and that, if taxable at all,
the Court had no jurisdiction to enter into the question by
petition, but that the remedy, if any, of the petitioner was
by bill in equity.
Mr. W. T. S. Daniel, Mr. Rolt, and Mr. Speed supported
the petition, which was opposed by Mr. Russell, Mr. J.
Parker, Mr. Rogers, and Mr. Goodeve, for the principal re-
spondents ; and by Mr. Wigram, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Willcock,
Mr. Blunt, Mr. Chichester, Mr. Cairns, and Mr. Mee
Mathew, for other parties. Mr. Rolt, who, at the opening
of the petition, was a junior counsel for the petitioner,
having during the hearing been created Queen's Counsel,
waved his right to reply, and that duty was performed by
Mr. Daniel.

His HoNouß—Several points have been made and argued
in support of this petition, on which I do not find it necessary
at present to pronounce any opinion. These points, and in-
deed every point of the case, have been exceedingly well
argued by Mr. Daniel. It appears to me that there are very
special and particular circumstances in the case, and upon
the facts which are to be collected from the materials be-
fore me, I think it at least reasonably arguable that the
solicitors had a fair ground for claiming, as they appear to
have claimed, on the occasion of the discussions which
preceded the severance of the connexion between them
and the provisional committee, to be entitled, in honour,
if not in law, and by a moral, if not a technical, equity,
to a compensation or pecuniary advantage, independent
of their professional demands or professional remuneration,
and that the compensation or pecuniary advantage thus
claimed was agreed to be included in, and was included in,
the sum of 26,0001., not fraudulently. How this matter iu
truth stands, I give no opinion beyond saying that I am not
satisfied that the claim was made dishonestly, colourably, or
fictitiously. It may have been well or ill-founded. It may
be that it ought to be in some mode investigated ; it may
stand or it may not abide the test of investigation. There
may have been some degree of pressure; but still, as the
money was paid in full of all demands, without a bill, and
without any knowledge of the mere amount of costs claimed
or due,it was not, I think, proved to have been obtained by
fraud, and was, as to an undistinguished, unknown, and
uncertain portion of it, paid upon a consideration, which
I think that I am not, under this petition, authorised to
pronounce dishonest or frivolous, or myself enabled to ques-
tion. It would, therefore, in nay judgment, supposing that
I were to order the delivery of a bill of costs, and to direct
its taxation, and that such an operation should produce an
amount short of 28,0001., be impossible for the Court in this
particular ease to pronounce judicially without a suit whe-
ther the difference ought to be returned. I ought not,
therefore, I conceive, to do more on this petition than to
direct it to stand over without prejudice to any suit, with
liberty to institute a suit, and with liberty generally to
apply. Whether a suit against these solicitors properly
framed would succeed, I have an opinion which I will not
state. It struck me at one time that the Court, under the
present proceedings, might have laid hold of the written
undertaking to deliver a bill of costs, worded as
that undertaking is; but to order upon the ground of It
the delivery of the bill for the purposes of taxation against
these solicitors would be wrong, if not otherwise right. The
avowed object of the present petitioner is taxation, and
that these solicitors, if they have been overpaid, shall be
compelled to refund. I cannot treat the bill of costs as re-
quired for any other than such purpose. Ido not wish now
to be understood as deciding that the petitioner on all the
alleged grounds of opposition to his petition was right. I
shall order the petition to stand over without prejudice to
any suit; with liberty to institute a suit, and with liberty
generally to apply.
Solicitors for the petitioners, Messrs. Lacy and Bridges;
for the respondents Messrs. Stephen and Hutchinson; fbr
other parties served with the petition, Mr. J. Owens and
Mr, J. Ravenscroft.