Martin v Sherry

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 08 July 1904
• Date: 08 July 1904
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

Appeal

Before LORD ASHBOURNE, C., and HOLMES, L.J.

MARTIN

and

SHERRY

Barnard v. GostlingENR 2 East, 569.

Christophers v. WhiteENR 10 Beav. 523.

Clack v. Carlon 7 Jur. (N. S.) 441.

Edmonson v. DavisENR 4 Esp. 14.

Esposito v. BowdenENR 7 E. & B. 784.

Kent v. WardUNK 70 L. T. (N. S.) 612.

Matchett v. ParkesENR 9 M. & W. 767.

Re SweetingELR [1898] 1 Ch. 268.

Williams v. VereUNK 10 T. L. R. 477.

Solicitor — Costs —

62 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1905. MARTIN v. SHERRY (1). Solicitor—Costs—Solicitors (Ireland) Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Viet. c. 17), s. 48. P. and P., junior, who were father and son, carried on business together as solicitors at Armagh, under the name of J. E. P. & Son. P., junior, had served his apprenticeship to his father, and had been admitted a solicitor about five years. There was no deed of partnership between them, no division of profits, and no accounts of profits between them. An action was commenced in 1902 by the plaintiff, with J. E. P. & Son as his solicitors. It was tried at Belfast at the Summer Assizes for 1902, and resulted in judgment for the plaintiff for £105 and costs. By an oversight of the town agent of J. E. P. & Son, in Dublin, the duty was not paid on the license of P., junior, for the year 1902, and it remained unpaid till October, 1902, when the omission was discovered and the money was paid ; but the license for the certificate of P., senior, was paid. On taxation of the costs the defendant objected to such of the items of the bill of costs as represented work done while the duty on the license of P., junior, remained unpaid. P., senior, deposed that all the work in the case had been done by himself : Held (affirming the decision of Boyd, J.), that P., senior, was entitled to recover the entire of the costs. THE action was brought by the plaintiff as a stockbroker for money due to the plaintiff on an account furnished by him. The writ of summons was issued on the 14th May, 1902. The action was tried by Barton, J., and a special jury, at Belfast, on the 30th and 31st July, 1902; and the jury having answered the questions submitted to them, the Judge referred the plaintiff's claim to the Master to take an account of what was due to him, but refrained from giving judgment. Both plaintiff and defendant moved for judgment, and in the result judgment was entered for the plaintiff for £105 with costs. The solicitors for the plaintiff were Joshua E. Peel and John A. Peel, of Armagh, who carry on business as " Joshua E. Peel & Son," and when their costs came before the Taxing Officer, the defendant (1) Before Loan ASHBOURNE, C., and Hogs, L.J. VOL. II.] BINGE'S BENCH DIVISION. 63 objected to the items in their bill of costs from 1 to 165, on the Appeal. ground that they were incurred between the 14th February and 1904. 17th October, 1902, during which period no license was taken out MARTIN for Mr. John A. Peel. SKERRy. It appeared that Mr. Joshua Peel had been practising as a solicitor for over thirty years : Mr. John Peel (his son) had been admitted in Hilary Sittings, 1897. On the 6th February, 1901, Mr. Peel sent up to his town agent the money to pay for the stamp duty on the certificate of himself and his son, £6 and £6. The town agent paid the stamp on the • license for Joshua Peel, but with respect to John Peel he raised the point that as the latter was not four years admitted he was liable to a duty of £3 only. The officer at the Stamp Office refused to accept payment of the smaller amount, and the town agent intended to contest the matter, as Mr. John Peel had been admitted on the 13th February, 1897. The matter, however, passed out of his mind, and was forgotten, and he omitted to inform Mr. Peel. In 1902 the town agent proceeded to pay the duty for both the Messrs. Peel for that year, when the officer at the Stamp Office pointed out that the duty for Mr. John Peel for 1901 had not been paid, and he refused to take it. The matter was afterwards settled through the IncorÂporated Law Society, and the duty was paid on the 17th October...