 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
[taxation of costs - legal profession, overcharging - imprisonment for debt]
In re Oakes
Supreme Court of Van Diemen's Land Pedder C.J., July 1826 Source: Hobart Town Gazette, 15 July 1826[1]
The motion which Mr. Oakes made on this subject in the Supreme Court last week, was as nearly as we could collect, in the following words. ``I beg to assure your Honor," said he, addressing himself to the Chief Justice, ``that in making this motion for the reduction of exorbitant law charges, it is not my wish to make any personal attack on the learned gentlemen of a profession for which I have a wonderful respect. It is merely the magnitude of their charges, authorised or otherwise I cannot pretend to say of which I complain. They will acknowledge to your Honor, as they have done to me, that they cannot help it." Owing to some informality and want of talent in Mr. Oakes' method of bringing forward his motion, as we understand, his Honor the Chief Justice at this time left the Court, by which means the speech was interrupted, but the sequel was, we learn, to this purpose:- The bill of charges, which he was about to present to the consideration of his Honor, was moderate in comparison with many others. He instanced a debt of L.8 due by a poor man, the discharge of which was L.18 without once coming into court. The cost of one law suit is the price of a pair of oxen, and two pair of oxen is an independence to an industrious man, who, if he be thus deprived of the means of carrying on his agricultural pursuits, is reduced with his family to ruin. Accident or the weather, often prevents the farmer from sending his produce to market to satisfy the demands of a creditor; he is then arrested, and in two days, thrown headlong into the bottomless pit alluded to. The cost of another debt, only 11s. 2d., amounted to L.25. The expense of obtaining justice by law is such, that a prudent man is often induced to pay an unjust claim, and of two evils to choose the least."
Notes [1] The Colonial Times was also concerned about the costs of litigation, particularly when a poor imprisoned debtor was subject to a large amount of costs in addition to the debt: see its issues of 2 and 9 June 1826. The Hobart Town Gazette of 5 August 1826 noted one case in which the plaintiff's damages were one shilling and a farthing, and the costs £30 sterling. The reference was apparently to Solomons v. Hillers (Hobart Town Gazette, 12 August 1826) in which the claim was for £36 for goods sold and delivered. The admittedly heavy costs should be assessed by reference to the claim, rather than the outcome. |
|
|||||
|
