, 1884-02-09
MOTIVES.

With regard to the rules which prior to
the emanati0m Of the law OF oath May 1879
were applicable in respect to the right of
lawyers IN DenDlark to obtain fees for con-
ductng public suits and suits with grant
of beneficial. Government would refer to
the PREDATORY remarks with Which the
Home Government introduced the draft Of
The law in the Land3thiDg the 31st J4nu
airy 1879.
II public criminal suits a lawyer was al
ways entitled t. receive Il fee, whether he
act Il for the prosecution or for the de-
fence, and irrespective OF the result OF the
suit. Originally, ill regard to cases tried
in tn" noA metropolitan lower courts, the
fee wa intended to be "a reasonable re.
munplation for the lawyers labour in the
suit, to d. i>el by the Judge according to
the eNttu>lVtnGSS Of The suit and the care
bestowed thereon" subsequently, in con.
sequence of the rnaCtmentS concerning
suits in the Upper CourtS and the supreme
Court, in which il was laid down that til
fee in question 'WaS not intended to con
Stitutc equivalent remuneration for tn Q
lawyers work in criminal suits, but should
be considered merely as a partial cOmpen-
sati0n for the diSproportionatenesS, created
by existing conjurctnlcs, between the adj
y,ntageS and The disadvantages Of their
posi- iOn,"-it became the practice, that
the fee was Fl ed in IL similar manner in the
lower courts also, in consequence of which
the lawyers Zee, generally speaking was
not fixed in proportion to his actual work
in lhe suit.
In suits wjth grant of beneficial the ap-
pointed lawyer in the lower courts was en-
titled to fee, whether the suit was won or
last b,t II. fila ntbor .0D,tso la ~ no
ceivcd no fee unless the suit was won by
his client. Nor was the lawyer in this
case allowed a fee corresponding to his ac-
tual work in the suit.
In the Danish West Indies, however, law
yers received no remuneration or fee for
conducting public criminal suits in the
lower courts or in the upper court (cfr.
Rpscr. 14th August 1889 and chancery-let-
ter OF 18th june $780,
In 1859 a draft of ordinance on this mat
ter was laid before the Colonial Council,
which was then a consultative body but
the Council diSrecommended the passage
of the draft.
A similar Draft Of ordinance was laid be-
fore both t0I0nial Councils in 1872, and
was unanimously passed at LIST and 2nd
discussion in the colonial Council OF ST.
Thomas aud St. John. As, however, at
3ld discussion III the Colonial Council OF
ST. Croix, the draft was rejected 10y a tie
of voteS-7 votes in favour of the draft,
and Z against it, it was Withdrawn by
Government i'll so far as relating to st.
Thomas.
In suits with grants of beneficial, in the
lower courts as well as in the upper court,
the appointed lawyer is allowed a fee only
when the first suit is won by his client
(cfr. ordinance 3rd June 1876, 5 ~ and
chancery letter 10Th June 1872
The reasons owing 10 which the two
drafts were laid before the Colonial Coun-
cils-the injustice that lawyers i'll the colo.
MES should employ their time and vol in
public suits without remuneration, and
particularly, that they should do so while
lawyers iii all other parts of Denmark
were enumerated, and, finally, that law
yers i'll the Supreme Court were remunera-
ted whenever public suits from the colo
MES were appealed to the Supreme Court
=, are exlant still, and are just as weighty
low as they were then Hence 1t has for
a long time been contemplated to effect. the
removal of this unjust anomaly.