Re ABBOTT & MOORE, Solicitors, and 12 & 13 Vic., c. 53

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date30 June 1866
Date30 June 1866
CourtRolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

In re ABBOTT & MOORE, Solicitors, And 12 & 13 Vic., c. 53.

In re WaltersENR 9 Beav. 299.

In re CowanENR 8 Beav. 438.

Re WhalleyENR 20 Beav. 576.

In re BlakerlyENR 32 Beav. 379.

Re ChambersENR 34 Beav. 177.

200 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1866. Rolls. In re ABBOTT & MOORE, Solicitors, And 12 & 13 Vic., c. 53. June 30. Order to ON the 20th of June 1865 the usual order was made referring amend a bill of costs re- several bills of costs for taxation. The bills of costs had been ferred, but not lodged for served on the client, and, though referred for taxation, had not been taxation, by lodged in the Taxing-Master's office. The items, No. 784 and striking out an item in s serted „Li_ No. 794, in one of them, were duplicates. An application was now in it by take. made to amend that bill of costs by striking out item No. 784. It Statement. was grounded on an affidavit, which stated that the items were copied from the diary or day-book of one of the solicitors who had the management of the cause to which the bill of costs referred, and , who was abroad, for the recovery of his health, when the bill of costs was made out ; that the charges were duplicates, and had been inserted inadvertently and by mistake, and without any intention to make a double charge in respect of said items. Argument. Mr. Trevor, in support of the motion, contended that the geÂneral rule that a bill of costs, after it has been lodged for taxation, cannot be amended, is only a rule of practice, which the Court has power to relax, and would relax in a case of accidental mistake, which this was: 1 Smith's Ch. Pr., p. 151 ; Morgan and Daveys on Costs, p. 341 ; Adair on Costs, p. 26 ; In re Walters(a); In re Cowan (b). But this bill of costs had not been lodged. Therefore the rule did not apply. Mr. Palles, contra, relied on the rule that the Court would never entertain an application to amend by diminishing the charges in a bill of costs; although, in a strong case, it might amend it by adding an item or increasing a charge : Re Whalley (c); In re BlaÂkerly (d); Re Chambers (e); especially after an order for taxation (a) 9 Beay. 299. (b) 8 Beay. 438. (c) 20 Beay. 576. (d) 32 Beay. 379. (e) 34 Beay. 177. CHANCERY REPORTS. 201 has been made. On the principle that, if the item had been omitted, 1866. Rolls. the client might have paid the bill without taxation. In re ABBOT AND The MASTER OP THE ROLLS.* MOORE Solicitors. It would be carrying the rule to a great length to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases

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