Bank of N.Z. v. Graham Pitt, and Bennett.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 434, 27 March 1890, Page 2

Bank of N.Z. v. Graham Pitt, and Bennett.

[special to standard.] Auckland, last night. At ths Supreme Court, in the c ire Bink of New Zealand v. Graham, Pitt and Bennett, Mr Button moved for an order to review the taxation of costs in this action, also for an order to set aside or vary the judgment. The motion to review the t .xation was taken first. The items were costs of commission to take the evidence of Mrs Scott, in Auckland, for the case which was hoard at Gisborne. There w-.s an affidavit by Mr Sievwright, solicitor, of Gisborne, who attended at the taxation, and objected to certain items; also an affidavit by Mr H. J. Finn, who was counsel for defendants in this action, and Mr Button contended that Mr Finn’s c s‘B hid been taxed on a wrong basis, and the Registrar was bound by the scale of the code, as the commission was not outside the colony. Mr Hesketh, who appeared for the defendants, held that defendants had power to issue execution immediately the taxation was made, and in this instance t ev did so, for the taxa ion was only fiaishe l at ■ne o’clock and the execution issu 'd at three o'clock, but the question was whether th» Registrar wss bound by the scale, which only allowed £i 4s. He quo'ed auth Titles to show that fees to counsel were treated as disbursements. He contended that it was shown ’hat the parties agreed that £4 4s. al'nwed by the scale, was insufficient, and 'hat the costs should bo taxed by th* l R gistrar, and Mr Sievw’g'it had given no notice that he intended to have the taxation revlewad, although ho had raised objections and asked the Registrar to minute them. His Honor said he oou’d not imagine that the Chief Justice, In malting an order for the taxation of costs, meant that inslead of four guineas sixtv guineas should be allowed. Hs must hold that the Registrar had proceeded on a wrong basis and allowed unreasonable costs. In allowing the expens" of a solicitor coming to Auckland he thought what the Chief Justice meant was that in addition to the costs allowed by the code there would be cost of agency, etc., which would properly be the subject cf taxation. He would make nn order referring the bill of costs to the Registrar, with instructions that in all matters attended to by a solicitor personally he was to follow the code, but in all matters at a distance all cost such as would reasonably have been incurred by an agent I should be taxed. By consent of counsel His Honor set aside judgment in the case. Mr * Button applied for costs, and £2 2s were I allowed in each cate in addition to costs out ( bf pockoh 1