9

I.—B

217. Yes ; but you can say " the right charge is only £500." You ought to put at the bottom what the right charge is.—No ; that's not the principle of taxing. 218. Then what is the use of taxation ?—To fix charges if objected to. A person may object to many items, and consent to others. 219. Then why do they come before you to be fixed ? Would you prepare a sort of arrangement showing what should be the charges for the different cases ?—That would be very difficult, because I could not fix the fee, for instance, for which Mr. Stout would come up here. 220. But couldn't you fix what the leading counsel and second counsel should get, and so on ?— I could not say counsel should come up here for £50. He might say I won't come for less than £100. 221. The Chairman.] I will try to make it clear to you. The point that Mr. Williams and Mr. FitzGerald want to get at from you is this: Supposing this bill brought before you for taxation, by consent, had been for £2,000 instead of £500, would you have felt yourself warranted, by consent of the opposite side, in taxing it to that amount ?—Yes ; when by consent. I don't know whether there be any authorities in such cases. I have not looked them up, and I can't bring any to recollection. 222. In view of the fact that you had reason to believe that Mr. Wason was not going to be called upon to pay the whole amount, do you think it is proper to allow an exorbitant sum ?—I don't consider that I allowed any sum as taxing-master, except in a mere technical sense. 223. Then, you understood that the bill was being taxed really as a matter of form ?—Yes. 224. Had you any idea of who the invisible benefactor was that was going to pay the amount?— By conjecture, only, from what I saw in the papers when there was a discussion in the House. 225. Mr. Macandrew.] Did the taxing take place subsequent to the meeting of the General Assembly ?—Yes ; on the 26th. 226. The Chairman.] You gathered from what took place before you, as taxing-master, that if the amount as taxed were not paid from some other source than Mr. Wason himself, he would not be called upon to pay the full amount ?—Yes ; I understood that. I think I may fairly say that, from the way in which the clerks worded it. 227. I want now to ask you two or three formal questions. The practice, I believe, is this in the Supreme Court between the parties, in. taxing these bills of costs, you rely, as far as possible, upon English precedent ?—We follow English precedents—English rulings. 228. That is your authority ? —Yes ; if there is any doubt in a case we refer to the text books. 229. Yes ; of which there is a considerable number I believe ?—Yes. 230. Having now heard the cases mentioned yourself, can you say whether, in the future, a fee should be allowed greater than is allowed in ordinary cases in the Supreme Court ?—lf the election petition is an ordinary one, no. If there were any directions, as I put it before, of any nature on which the masters are to tax. 231. lam going to ask that presently. I want to get your own opinion now. Knowing the Act, and seeing its working, and having to tax bills of costs, can you see any reason why bills of costs should not be taxed in the same way as ordinary cases in the Supreme Court ? —No ; I don't think so now. I think in the election petitions most of the intricate points of law have been settled by present judgments—the question of aliens for instance. 232. Do you think it would be desirable to have regulations in regard to taxation ?—Very desirable. This is one of the difficulties of taxing-masters here, there are no regulations. 233. And if so prepared, regard should be had to what should be done in the Supreme Court, as to time taken up and nature of case ?—Yes; if a client chooses to bring up counsel to Christchurch, from Dunedin or Wellington, I would only allow him at the same rate as what he could have got counsel for at Christchurch. 234. Suppose Mr. Stout had claimed, and had been granted a fee of 500 guineas ?—That would have been exorbitant on taxing party and party costs, as between solicitor and client, and I should have reduced it. I should have followed the precedents in the English cases where very high fees have been reduced. Our Act follows the English Act. They have been reduced there where they have been extremely high, and I should certainly do the same. 235. With reference to the question of taxing election costs between party and party, as between solicitor and client: on that point, I mentioned that if costs were taxed, solely as between party and party, it would have the effect of reducing them to the loser, I should like to remark that I presume the object of directing that they shall be taxed in that manner, is, in order to prevent frivolous petitions being brought, as a person would be less likely to run the risk of being cast on costs on the higher scale than on the lower.

Monday, 24th July, 1882. (Mr. Sheehan, Chairman.) Captain Morris, M.H.E., examined. 236. The Chairman.] You know the functions of this Committee, Captain Morris ?—Yes. 237. One thing we are going into is the costs of disputed elections, and we are comparing the cost under the old system and the new. You were, I believe, a petitioner in this House in 1876 ?— Yes. 238. What did it cost you ?—I only know that the total of the whole thing was about £640, but that includes a case in the Supreme Court. It is all put together. I think you may put down the costs, as far as the case in the House was concerned, at £400 about. 239. That was before a Committee of the House ? —Yes. 240. Did yourself and Captain Eeid appear by counsel ?—Yes. 241. You won the petition ? —Yes. 242. What had you to pay ?—I was allowed £150, so it cost me altogether from £250 to £300. The witnesses were the greatest cause of expense. I. 8.-2.