The Statesman.
London, England, 1819-06-30 00:00:00

NORMS V. HUNT.

Mr. Scituate appeared to show gust against the
rule obtained by Mr Hunt in pers.', calling upon
the Plaintiff Is rhos cause why the Master shield
set review his 'station of reels in this cases, anti
why the Plaintiff shoeld not pay the casts of that
epplication. The Losetted Coenaet first reed the af-
fidavit of Mr. Rant epos which the rale was granted.
It stated, that the cause of action arose In Julie,
1818, and that he, Mr. Hunt, was keelson to reside,
shew in tease, is Nodelk-street, its the Strand;
and when in the cemistry, at MiJdlehin-cotteri,
Whitt. That proees4, however, was sued oat against
Mai both in Middies.) and Hampshire, and the two
woks were showed by the Masser on Me 'station of
costs. It then stated, that the Master had allowed
3U Wine for the &elevation, wl, rrrrr it consisted
of Doty 35 folios The Master bed also allowed themes
of 12 reifies, fora Special Jury, but only four aye•
dal iarymen 'heeded, the rest brio' laymen.—
Again. the Master had allowed three Coensel, being
more than could be necessary, as Mr. Hew defended
his own case. and only three witnesses were Pistilli,-
ed by the Plaintiff. The effidatit concluded with
stating. that the Master, from hastiness and seen-
genre in the eseeetiosa of his duties, bed made seve-
ral allowances which were itti-gsl end inject. Tao
Learned Counsel •hen read the @Week of Mr.
Smedley, the shorn,) for the Plaintiff, in reply. It
set forth, that before soy writ was issued, enquiry
was made after Mr. Mont i■ town, and it was •seer-
, tained that be we' in lianorhire. A Urfa was se-
! cording!), sent into Hampshire I bet, soon after it
arrived, Mr. Heist came to town, and then a bill of
Middleses was issued, the former writ sot having
I been solved elton him. With respect I. the declare-
ti rrrr it Ott not counted by the Mosier word by
l!frord; bet he said to the parties. Oat, from his daily
rexpertenci, he judged it to be 40,felios Mr. Hunt
was present, end did sot object to this calculation.
Bet Mr. Fisedley sow edmitted, that these was a
mistake of live folios, the declaration consisting of
only &ironer,. As to the Jerymen, Mr. Smedley
swore, that it had been utast to allow the talesman
the sante sum as the special JUffifl, end that one
guinea was iisid to each of the Jurors on this occa-
sion. He then► said. that seven whoe.**, wero sob-
realised, bet that only four lIPP/aelanliat4ll;and that
the only additions mane by the Muter 111 his bill were,
t Is. undercharged for servings rule, end 41. for
11
attendances omitted to be charged, to which the De-
(trident took no objection at the times
- -

--- _ _
Mr. Meet, in sopperfeS the mile, contended, AO
two writs ought not to base been issued, and that Ike
Master ought net to hate allnoed 40 folios fur the
declerstion. As to the salesmen, it was said, that
it was customary to allow them she mane sour as was
peel to Special Jurors. Mnw for it might be *us-
Ussery be did not know; bet unless amen could
do sissy law, be trusted that the Cent world not
allele this charge. Th.e was no law, be mill, to
compel the Plaintiff te pay the teen:inn one guinea
each ; and if the law did not serene Of the charge
West produce eery serioesevils, immesh as theta's"-
I
men, in order to get the (sines, might he Wowed to
find a verdict in hew of the Pi•intilf by whom Ow
I the tales was prayed. He neat of jetted ro tbe num-
ber of Coins,' retained. The Plaintiff'. attorml
!had employed four Counsel; three of them, Mr.
I Scarlet, Mr. Mew's', and Mr. Gurney, were King's
I Counsel ; and the ether, Mr. Smedley, 111116 behind
the bar : and yet only these witnesses were essmiiird
by the King's Counsel, while the other Counsel sister
spoke, but %tood by es a bottle-holder. It was true
I that the Master, on tiling the bill, had strwk out
I Iwo of the Counsel ; bet then a refresher was al-
lowed to one of them ; so that in one pet of the bill

- _
Ow,. Master iloclarttl Chit ibis Gentleman •ss u"ne-

smeary, white In another part be gave him a refresher.
Bet he, Mr. Hunt, contended, that be was not emend
to pay Counsel at all. He had not emi.loyeil
eel, and he was not liable for any earnest which the
Plaintiff bad iorurred in employing them. There
was bo law, he slid, which gave Counsel an action
for fees ; 'heir remuneration, like that of • physicists,
was si.lusitsr). finless, then, there elisqed a law to
compel • man to pi fees to Counsel. he wri•ld nos
abide by the charge in Ibis Instance; he 'mold not
abide by the dictum of the Master, or of soy other
person, emissary to the law of the land. Ile was
brand to- obey the laws, and therefore he claimed the
benefit of those law.; and he diA declare, suit If there
were no positive law to compel bins to pay fees to
Counsel, he would not pay them merely beam, the
3ister bad allowed skew in kis =allots.