8

I.—B

189. You have not considered it yet ?—I can't consider it till I hear the arguments on both sides. It will depend whether the briefs as regards counsels' fees were given an unnecessary time before the trial or not; and the question will arise whether it will be allowed altogether, or not at all. 190. Mr. Shrimski.] I wish to ask whether it is the intention to reopen the case of Wason in regard to Mr. Bloxam ? 191. The Chairman.] He is here to answer all questions that may be put to him. 192. Mr. Shrimski (to witness).] You said you had overheard the Clerk say that Wason would never be called upon to pay it ?—-I did not say " Not called upon to pay." I meant to say, if I did not say it, that he mentioned incidentally, he would not be called upon to pay such a large amount —that they would make a reduction. 193. Then, we are to understand, I suppose, that the application now for the expenses to be paid, is merely for the purpose of getting it from the Crown ?—I can't say that, sir. 194. Would you infer that ?—I should have inferred that it is the practice of solicitors sometimes to send in a long bill of costs, and say they will take so much for it. 195. The Chairman. In regard to the word " overhearing " used in your evidence, I believe the remark alluded to was passed at table, and not that you overheard it in any unfair sense ? —Yes. 196. Mr. Macandrew.] I should like to ask if the amount taxed by the taxing process is taxed by any rule of law defining the matter ?—As regards counsels' fees, all the charges are taxed on certain principles, and the taxing-master's opinion is generally taken on a review as to amounts, although it is very seldom upset on review, unless he has gone on wrong principles. 197. Then the whole thing depends on the view of the taxing-master ?—-Yes ; to a very great extent. 198. Well, suppose there is a case in which A.B. charges £10, and CD. charges £20, would the taxing-master treat them differently if the principle involved was the same ?—lf one gentleman chooses to charge less than he could fairly do, the taxing-master would not say that the other person should be reduced. It would he on the. same principle as this: one mercantile man may take less for his goods than another, or it might cut the other way. 199.—1t appears to me, then, that in the case to which you are referring, it was a " try on." If a merchant were to send in a bill for a certain quantity of sugar, say, at a given price, and were to state that he is willing to take half that amount, it would be very singular ?—But that would be different from a bill of costs sent in to be taxed. 200. The whole thing is a mystery to me. 201. Mr. Shrimski.] I look upon it that the taxing-master ought to have power to exercise his own discretion ?—So they have. 202. Mr. Macandrew.] Would it not be possible for a taxing-master to reduce a bill of £300 to £50 ?—lf he did, no doubt his decision would be passed under review, if he did it arbitrarily and without reason, it would be referred back to him. It seems to me that the whole thing is arbitrary. 203. Mr. Williams.] Mr. Bloxam has repeatedly stated, when I asked if he would allow larger fees in the Lyttelton case, he would do so if there was no objection by the other side. Is that correct ?—Yes ; in reference to that particular case. 204. But it does not apply to all taxation ?—No ; I know personally that Mr. Holmes had been getting up that case a long time before. I believe for a week. 205. Yes ; but you stated that if there were no objection on the other side you would do so ?— Certainly, if there had been any objection it would have gone in, and, knowing the whole circumstances of the case, I would have allowed it, even though there had been an objection. 206. But supposing there was no objection in the Wakanui case ?—That was by counsel, as between solicitor and client, and not between party and party. 207. Therefore, as there was no objection, as between solicitor and client, you allowed it ?—Yes ; the other transaction was between party and party. 208. Quite so. That, however, is only a matter of degree. What I uuderstand you to say is this, that because the other side did not object to the amount you passed it ? —Yes. 209. I don't know whether I ought to ask this question, but we ought to get at it. I want to ask the witness if he does not think the duty of a Eegistrar is to protect the public from both lawyers, and not to allow a fee because an opposing lawyer consents to it. 210. The Chairman.] The question is a proper one to put. 211. Mr. Williams.] Don't you think your duty is to protect the public against both lawyers ?— Yes ; against collusion. But this is impossible between solicitor and client. If the client comes and consents to pay a certain amount, I don't see that a taxing-master would have any grounds in tha case to say that he should be forbidden to pay it. 212. Mr. FitzGerald.] What was the fee here between solicitor and client ? —£llo. 213. Supposing it had been £1000. Do not you think that in that case, considering the amount an outrageous one, you, in the interests of the public, should step in and say " No ?"—lt would not be in the interests of the public if the client did not object. 214. Would you not, considering that to be an outrageous charge, because there was consent as between solicitor and client, would you not interfere ? —I should consider I had no power to interfere. The case would be simply parallel to that of a man confessing judgment. 215. Mr. Williams.] It is quite obvious that a Eegistrar is ex officio called upon to interfere, otherwise there is no object in taxing it ?—Yes; but there is a difference between taxing by consent and taxing the amount when it is objected to. 216. Mr. Dick.] If a bill is brought in to be taxed, is it not the duty of the master to see whether it is a proper fee to be charged ?—No, sir, not as between solicitor and client. I should guard myself by making it that it was "by consent." The man consents to pay. I could not, if you came before me and said, "I am willing to pay my solicitor £1,000." I would not say, " You shall not do so ; you shall only pay £500."