Belfast Harbour Commissioners v Lawther

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date10 December 1866
Date10 December 1866
CourtRolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

BELFAST HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
and

LAWTHER.

Sturges v. DimsdaleENR 9 Beav. 170.

In re Colquhoun 5 D., M. & G. 35.

In re WhalleyENR 20 Beav. 576.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 147 1866. Rolls. BELFAST HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS v. LAWTHER. Nov. 22. Dec. 10. ON taxation between solicitor and client, the Master disallowed the following items in the bill of costs lodged by the petitioner's soÂlicitor : No. of items. 22. Proportion of Mr. Brewster's fees for consultation £1 1 0 76. Like for refresher ... ••• ... 1 1 0 [Consultation fees and refresher of three guineas had been given to Mr. Brewster instead of the usual fees of £2. 2s.] , 89. To the attendance of our Mr. Smith in Dublin from the evening of the 9th instant (Dec. 1864) to the evening of the 22nd, inclusive, engaged in this business exclusively, but for which attendance we only charge five days, viz., two of which the cause was at hearing ; two for the numerous attendances on Counsel ; preparation of petition, having same filed, &c.; one for travelling both ways, at £3 3s. per 15 15 0 90. Paid travelling expenses and car-hire ... 2 10 0 91. To attendance of Mr. Smith specially in Dublin, to attend consultation, and have affidavit settled ; enÂtire day ••• ••• ... 3 3 0 92. Paid travelling ... 1 12 93. To the attendance of Mr. Smith in Dublin from the 22nd instant to the 27th, both inclusive, there being a consultation of Counsel on the 22nd, and the case being at hearing on the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 27th instant, six days, at three guineas per 18 18 94. Paid his expenses ..• ... 2 10 0 :Statement. 95. To the attendance of our Mr. Smith when judg ment given in favour of the Commissioners, with costs against the Marine Investment Company ... 3 3 0 261. Paid his expenses ... ••• ••• 1 12 6 £51 5 6 148 CHANCERY REPORTS. An affidavit was made by Mr. Smith, which stated that he and his partner were both, during the conduct of the suit, residing near Belfast ; and neither had any residence in Dublin ; and that their Dublin business was transacted through the medium of an agent. That the suit was an interpleader suit, instituted to restrain an action at law for the sum of £4500, brought by the respondent Samuel Lawther against the petitioners, and was of great importÂance to the petitioners ; and, from the fact of the time being limited for filing the cause petition, as the petitioners were bound to plead to the action at law, his attendance became necessary in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Hamilton v Colhoun
    • Ireland
    • King's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 16 December 1904
    ...275. (1) 1 New Ir. Jur. R. 275. (1) [1901] 2 I. R. 645. (2) [1904] 2 I. R. 478. (3) 1 New Ir. Jur. R. 275. (4) [1894] 2 I. R. 118. (5) 17 Ir. Ch. R. 147. (1) 1 New Ir. Jur. R. (1) 1 New Ir. Jur. R. 275. (2) [1904] 2 I. R. 478. (3) [1901] 2 I. R. 645. (4) [1893] P. 73. (1) 1 New Ir. J. 275. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT