The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-01 00:00:00

7501. a year for loss of fees, which they bad been in
the habit of taking previous to the passing of that
Act. No inquiry, however, appears to have been
made as to the legality of those fees before the com-
pensation was given them. The clerks also are now
in the receipt of fixed salaries ; but the old fees are
still taken, and the amount paid over to the suitors'
fee fund ; but whether all the money received for
fees finds its way into that fund is a matter relative
to which the report states some very interesting par.
titulars, which will enable the public to form their
own opinion upon the subject. It appears that when
any documents are filed in the Master's Office the
solicitors on both sides are compelled to take office
copies of them, and which the clerk charges for at the
rate of 4d. a folio, though he never pays the stationer
more than hi., and sometimes not even that. Of
course all the clerks are extremely anxious that the
number of folios of which the office copies consist
shall be ascertained as correctly as possible before
they make their charge for them ; but in an office
where a great number of people are constantly going
in and out, the attention of the clerk is frequently
distracted, so that he finds it quite impossible to count
the folios correctly. This appears to be the case in
all the Masters' offices, and what is singular, though
the interruption alluded to frequently causes the folios
to he over-counted, there is no instance on record,
even on days when the office was more than usually
thronged, of any clerk counting the number of folios
less than they actually were. This extraordinary
circumstance is explained by one of the witnesses, a
solicitor, who says—" The Master's clerk of course
profits by the over-counting, the fee fund profits by
the over-counting, and the solicitor profits
also, for he charges for drawing the docu-
ment according to the number of folios
marked on the back of it by the Master's
clerk." Supposing, for instance, the Master's clerk
computed an affidavit at 40 folios. The Master, in
taxing the costs, would allow ls. a folio for drawing
it, and 4d. for the copy ; so that the suitor suffers in
two or three ways where there is an improper count.
ing of the folios. The witness goes on to state " that
the Master's clerk merely gives a sort of rough guess
of how many folios there are, and marks it on the
back of the copy. He generally found them over-
counted, and sometimes to a very great extent. In
fact, the 'over-counting was habitual. He produced
a copy of an affidavit which was marked as 12 folios,
which contained only four folios, and said he had half-
a-dozen more. In the common law courts it is
usual for the attorneys on each side to hand over
copies of their respective affidavits to each other,
and to :rely upon each other for their correct-
ness ; and there is no valid reason whatever why
this practice should not be introduced into the
Court of Chancery. It would be a very con-
siderable saving, both of time and money, to the
suitor. The Chancery Regulation Act, in addition
to fixing the salaries of the Masters and their clerks,
&c., authorises certain parties to receive the fees im-
posed under the authority of the Act, who are di-
rected to pay the amount received by them into the
Bank of England, to the credit of the Accountant-
General, once a month, the amount to be verified by
affidavit. The fees so paid in form what is called the
suitors' fee fund, and are applied in payment of the
salaries assigned by the Act, and to defraying the
expenses of the offices connected with the Court.
The only security that the fees shall be duly collected
and paid over, is that the affidavit of the officer re-
ceiving the money that the amount paid over is the
total amount of what he has received. The public
may, perhaps, think that, as so many mistakes are
made in counting folios, is it not impossible that some
trifling mistakes may occasionally be made in the re-
turns, setting forth the amount of fees received. The
security is defective, because it does not insure the due
collection by the officer of all the fees which ought to
be paid ; because it does not provide a check for the
discovery of any omission, and, lastly, because it does
not afford any security against dishonesty in the
officer receiving the fees. With regard to what is
called copy-money, it appears that the salaries given
by the Act to some of the subordinate clerks are in-
tentionally fixed below the amount of fair remune-
ration, and the amount of copy money is made pay-
able to them to make up the deficiency. This mode
of remunerating them is certainly very objectionable,
because it makes it the interest of the officer to fur-
nish copies, and thereby interferes with one important
provision of the Act, that suitors shall not be com-
pellable to take copies, and by making it the interest
of the officer to magnify the length, it encourages,
to say the least of it, a very loose system of ascertain.
ing the number of folios, and the check against this
which might he expected from the solicitors is, to a
great extent, prevented by the circumstance that their
own charges are regulated by the length of those copies
and also leads to much slovenliness and inaccuracy in
the office copies, the clerks getting the copying done
as cheaply as possible ; in some instances, by women
living in their attics. I have already stated, that let
the business be ever so urgent, only one hour is
allowed for each warrant ; when that time expires
the next case is called on. Now any one would sup-
pose that where there is so much business to do, and
so little time to do it in, not a moment of that time
would be wasted, but it is just the reverse ; so far
from the whole hour being devoted to business, one of
the Master's clerks, when asked " Is there an hour
devoted to each warrant ?" replied, " No, nor any-
thing like an hour. The confusion that is going on
in the Master's office would astonish any person.
From the number of warrants granted, and the pres-
sure of business, one party is always trenching upon
the engagements of another ; there is always a cer-
tain time lost before they begin, and then a discussian
takes place as to what they did upon the last occasion
when they left off, and more than half the time is gone
before anythingis done." The witness was asked whe-
ther the expense of an inquiry before the Master was
not very great. He replied in the affirmative, adding,
" the chief expense of a Chancery suit is in the Mas-
ter's office." The Court, it appears, has no powe,r to
accelerate the business in the Master's office, and
there is no penalty for not proceeding; the Master
himself has no power of compelling the parties to go
on with the suit more expeditiously ; it is entirely
dependent upon the solicitor whether he will conduct
the suit expeditiously in the Master's office or not.
The witness was asked whether he had not found that
when a solicitor chooses to throw impediments in the
way he may protract the investigation before the
Master to a very great extent, to which he replied—
" He thonght that an ingenious solicitor who cavils at
everything, and excepts to every step which the
Master may take, may delay the proceedings without
end. He had known inquiries before the Master to
last six, seven, and even eight years, which, without
vexatious opposition, and with proper vigilance
on the part of the solicitor, might have been
completed in six months." So the Master and
his clerks charge the delay on the solicitors, and
the latter, as a matter of course, return the
compliment. The following is a very good specimen
of the manner in which some of the witnesses-fenced
with questions it was not quite convenient to
answer. The witness is a clerk in one of the Masters
offices. Question—" You are aware that the copies
made by the junior clerk are very imperfectly
written. Answer—They are better than they used
to be. Question—Are they very often very difficult
to read. Answer—l never read them. Question—
Do you know whom they employ to copy them.
Answer—l do not know, they are not done in the
office entirely. Question—Are they not usually done
by poor men or women.—l do not know whether
they are men or women, I do not see the persons."
Some of the other witnesses are equally ignorant on
the subject. They know as much as suits them to
tell, and very little more except in those cases where
the member putting the question evidently knows
what is really the fact, and in that case an evasive
answer would be of no avail. The truth must and
would come out, whether the witness liked to tell it
or not. What I have already written will give the
public some idea of the manifold abuses that exist in
the Masters' office; but, I shall have a great deal
more to say on the subject on a future occasion.
CENSORIUS.

" Was PAWNS."—A novel description of theft has
been for a night or two perpetrated upon a number of
brokers in the Calton, in which a good deal of dexterity
has been exhibited. On Wednesday night, no fewer
than seven individuals %ere tricked in the following
manner :—A decently attired woman with a bundle in
her hand, came into the shop, wishing to dispose, it
might be, of a shawl, or coat, or another article, which
she unrolled out of her bundle: and submitted for in-
spection. The broker, after examining the goods and
fixing a price, tied up the article again in a bundle, with
the view of putting it in some secure corner, but while in
the act of turning round to procure the purchase money,
the bundle was dexterously changed, and another of
precisely the same appearance substituted in its place,
unknown to the unsuspecting dealer. After the seller
had departed the buyer proceeded to re examine his
purchase, when he discovered that a metatuorphis had
taken place, and his shawl or coat had been converted, in
someinstances, into he sulitary leg of a pair of trousers
not worth anything. The perpetrator of this rather
ingenious method of pillaging the brokers is still at
large.—North B,itish Mail.

GROCERS' AND TEA. DEALERS' BENEVOLENT PRO-
TECTION SOClETY.—Yesterday the twentieth election of
annuitants on the funds of this institution took place at
the London Tavern, when three pensioners were added
0) the Lst Of fifty-two already elected, receiving pensions
varying from 181. to 301. per annum. Francis Hicks,
Esq., presided, and it was announced that his Royal
Highness the Duke of Cambridge had in the kindest
manner consented to take the chair at the ensuing anni-
versary dinner of the society in May next. This charity
appears in a highly satisfactory state, the funded capital
now amounting to between 11,0001. and 12 0001. ; yet,
from the disastrous events of the past year, in connexion
with the mercantile community of London, it is feared
that the applicants for the society's bounty will be nu-
merous. The whole of the East and West India and
colonial interest connected with the tea and grocery
trade are eligible to receive its benefits.