Rhyl Journal

Dispute over a I Rhyl Solicitor's Bill. ACTION ACAINST A NEWSPAPER PROPRIETOR. At Rhyl County Court, last Friday, before his Honour Judge Sir Horatio Lloyd, nearly the whole time was taken up in the hearing of an action brought by Mr. Alfred Lewis Jones, solicitor, Rhyl, against Mr. Samuel John Amos, newspaper proprietor and publisher, for the recovery of £21 14s. 6d., the amount of plaintiff's bill of costs for professional services. Defendant resisted the bill on the ground that plaintiff had been negligent in the conduct of the business in question, and he claimed £22 is* iod. damages alleged to have been sustained by him in con- sequence of such negligence, less £9 18s. iod., for which plaintiff was given credit. Mr. A. J. David was counsel for plaintiff, who is a member of the Rhyl Urban District Council, and defendant was represented by Mr. Ellis Jones Griffith, M.P. (instructed by Messrs. Bromley, Jones and Co.) Counsel for plaintiff submitted in the first place that it was no answer at all to plaintiff's claim for defendant to set up a counter-claim for alleged negligence unless he could show that the work in respect of which the claim was made had been wholly fruitless. If defendant had any fault to find with plaintiff's bill his remedy should have been to resort to the process of taxation, but instead of that he sent in a cheque for some £4 less than the amount claimed, the result being the refusal of the cheque, followed by a charge of negligence, which plaintiff heard of for the first time in September last, whereas the bill was in defendant's hands as far back as last December. Counsel then went on to explain that defendant and a yIr. Nicholson, of Chester, were interested in the Rhyl Steam Laundry, each having put in £350. They bought out the inter- ests of the shareholders, but the old company was continued with the exception that a banking account was opened in the joint names of Mr. Nicholson and Mr Amos. Subsequently it was thought better that the account should be trans- ferred to the name of the limited liability com- pany, the amount being guaranteed by five directors. Mr. Amos, in March, 1901, consulted NIr. Lewis Jones as to taking proceedings to wind up the company. At the outset certain diffi- culties arose as to the rights of the defendant to do this. Those difficulties were pointed out to him by the plaintiff, who read sections bearing on the subject from the Act of 1862. But Mr. Amos determined that he would proceed with a petition for the compulsory winding-up of the Company. He deliberately proceeded with the petition after the whole position had been ex- plained to him, and the matter fully considered. The petition was heard before His Honour at Chester, and dismissed. Subsequently the Com- pany commenced an action against Mr. Amos for £220, his share of the guarantee to the bank, the whole of which had been paid off by a NIr. Taylor, acting on behalf of Mr. Nicholson. The defendant was fortunate enough to obtain a settlement of that action, by which his shares were bought by NIr. Nicholson for and he was relieved from all liability to the bank and all other liabilities connected with the Company. The plaintiff made several applications for pay- ment, and eventually the defendant sent a cheque for £ Ii 5s. igd., disputing certain sums in the bill. This the pfaintiff returned, and threatened pro- ceedings for the recovery of the money. Then it was that the plaintiff first heard of any sugges- tion of negligence. Those were the circumstances under which defendant turned round and made that very gross accusation upon a professional man by saying he was not only not entitled to recover the costs he had sued for. but was liable to'pay him certain money by way of damages. Concluding, Counsel did not think plaintiff's bill couldjbe taxed on the ground of being excessive. He could not for the life of him see in reference to any single item that there had been anything in the way of an excessive charge. The Judge Would not that be a subject for taxation ? Counsel We have never had any objection to going to taxation. EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF. Plaintiff said he had been practising in Rhyl as a solicitor for about four years and a half, and defendant became a client of his in iqoi. In March of that year defendant cousulted him in reference to his interest in the Rhyl Steam Laundry Company, and appeared anxious to present a petition for winding up the concern. He also tuld witness of his liability to the bank. The matter was very complicated, and witness went fully into it with defendant. Defendant had had a very great deal of litigation, in fact lie had boasted that he had had nc end of litigation. Mr. Griffith Clearly it is not at an end yet. NIr. David Perhaps my friend hopes it will continue as long as he lives (laughter.) Plaintiff, continuing, said that after the first interview defendant brought him a large bundle of correspondence, and the question of the voluntary winding-up of the Company was discussed but that came to an end through defendant and Mr. Nicholson, of Chester, a director of the Company, failing to agree as to who should nominate the liquidator. An action by defendant against Mr. Nicholson for the wrongful detention of five shares followed, and defendant instructed witness to conduct the case for him. It was withdrawn upon terms, one of which was that defendant's petition for the winding up of the Company should be adjourned. Efforts were then made to sell the concern, witness having the conduct of those negotiations jointly with Mr. Brassey, the solicitor for Mr. Nicholson but they failed to get anything like the reserve price. After that defendant again consulted witness as to petitioning for the wind- ing up of the Company, and although witness pointed out more than once that there was con- siderable risk in doing so, and that he did not like the idea, defendant insisted upon petitioning. In July, IQ02, the Company brought an action against defendant, which was heard at Liverpool Assizes, where witness acted for defendant. The action was settled last December, and a copy of the terms of settlement was produced. Defen- dant then got rid of his shares in the Company, receiving £175 from Mr. Nicholson, and got re- leased from all liabilities in connection with the overdraft at the bank. That made a clean sweep of everything so far as defendant was concerned. All the work for which plaintiff now claimed appeared in the bill which had been presented to defendant. Cross-examined Witness held that the terms of settlement in the action at the Assizes were brought about through defendant's petition. He admitted the action was the result of the petition, and that the fruition of the settlement thereof, whereby defendant obtained was A BIT DETRACTED FROM by the amount of the costs which defen- dant had to meet. That £133 included about £ ^o in counsel's fees (laughter.) Defendant and witness had been on very friendly terms, but he could not say that defendant had brought him many clients though he took care to throw that in his (witness ) teeth when he settled the Assize business for him. Mr. Griffith Do I understand you to say that from start to finish—from the first interview in March, IGOI, to the hearing of the petition in the following July—you knew this was a wrong course to take ?—1 knew it was a risky business. Would you kindly tell us what risk there was ? M Mr. Amos had been a creditor there would not have been much risk. But what was the risk ?—The usual risk that attends all litigation. Can you detail the risk ?—Sometimes you are certain of your ground but I was not as certain of success as I often am. Did you think he could succeed if he were not a creditor ?—I thought he might succeed. How ?—Under that clause which states Whenever the court is of opinion that it is just and equitable that the Company should be wound up." Further cross-examined, plaintiff said that defendant's interest in the Laundry Company amounted to half the share capital. He could not say whether the petition stated that defen- dant was a creditor, but he remembered full well that he explained all the facts of the case to him at the time. Witness knew defendant was a contributory, and in the advertisement he put him down as such it was possible he described him as such in the petition too. Witness bad to prove that the Company was unable to pay its debts, and he endeavoured as far as his judgment would allow to follow the meaning of the Act. Mr. Griffith at this stage read the Rhyl Journal account of the hearing of defendant's petition at Chaster before Sir Horatio Lloyd, and asked plaintiff whether that was a fair account of what happened.—" Yes, I think so," replied plaintiff. Did you advise NIr. Amos to appeal against the decision ?" queried Mr. Griffith.—No. Did you tell him that on appeal he should win ? ■—No, I am confident I never did. All you told him was that if he wanted to appeal he could do so ?—Quite so. j Plaintiff, replying to further cross-questions, j said tiic first later view between him and dcicu*! A SUICIDAL POLICY. I Mr. Bull sharpening the tools which arc to kill his own trade. dant in connection with his business took place at his (plaintiff's) office, and not at defendant's office, as had been suggested. He did not recol- lect any interview at defendant's office until May. He never gave defendant any hope of success in his petition, as the just and equitable clause was one of considerable latitude. His own probability was that defendant would lose his case, but he thought it might force the hands of the Company, which was defendant's object, and which it did. Witness admitted receiving a sort of warning from Mr. Brassey, solicitor, Chester, that the thing was going to fail, and he showed the letter to defendant, as he had done with practically all letters between Mr. Brassey and himself. He could not remember whether he ventured any opinion on that letter from Mr. Brassey when he showed it to defendant, but his impression was that he warned him all along that he had not a good case. He did not know that he used the word failure but lie certainly told defendant that HE WAS RUNNING CONSIDERABLE RISK in persisting in presenting a petition. Witness sent his bill in on December isth last-in fact he sent in two on that date, one for £ 86 15s. yd., and another for £ 22 odd. The bill for the larger amount defendant settled on December 20th by payment of £ 6$, which ended the Assize case. There was a good deal of bantering on defendant's part at the time, and, he might add, bullying, for he (witness) never felt so humiliated in all his life. He settled the Assize case bill for £ 65 for the sake of peace and quietness, and because defendant wanted to have it off his mind before Christmas. Then when witness asked What about the smaller bill ?" defendant made a reply to the effect that he had not looked through it, and it must stand over. Had defendant disputed it at all witness would never have settled the other bill. The first intimation he had about defendant disputing his liability in that matter was by letter on August 2ist last. The £ 17 S from Mr. Nicholson witness paid over to defen- dant in full on December 24th last. It was con- trary to witness' advice that defendant persisted in litigation. Re-examined The ^175 was money which witness had received from Mr. Nicholson on transfer of shares in the Laundry Company, and defendant was entitled to have it handed over to him subject to witness' lien had he chosen to exercise it. When spoken to first about the smaller bill defendant asked why he did not charge a lump sum instead of sending him details. De- fendant was so satisfied with the way in which things had been conducted that he said in an off- hand way he would send witness another £ 20 worth of work before the year was out. Of course," added Mr. Jones, I took that for what it was worth (laughter.) Witness wrote asking for a settlement of the bill in both June and July last, but it was not until after another letter had been sent that defendant took any notice, and then a cheque came for £Ii 5s. iod., along with a letter repudiating items amounting to ^4 8s. 8d. The cheque was returned with a communication to the effect that unless a cheque for the full amount were received by a certain date a sum- mons would be issued. Then came a letter from Messrs. Bromley, Jones and Co., on Sept 4th, expressing surprise that witness should refuse the amount which the defendant had offered him, and stating that if they would refer to the bill they would see on the face of it plaintiff had NECLICENTLY ADVISED DEFENDANT upon a point which was absolutely essential before the commencement of proceedings, and further stating that in consequence defendant was mulcted in costs and expenses. Up to that time witness had not heard a single syllable from defendant or his solicitors as to negligence. By Mr. Griffith Witness never heard a word of complaint from defendant about the action which was lost at Chester. Why did he bring me the Assize action if he was not satisfied ?" added Mr. Jones. DEFENDANT'S CASE. This concluded plaintiff's case, and defendant was then called to give evidence. He said he had known plaintiff for some years, and had had certain social relationships. For one thing they attended the same place of worship. He re- membered plaintiff calling upon him at his office in March, 1901, and that was where he first men- tioned anything to him about the affairs of the Laundry Company, giving him as full particulars as he could from memory. Plaintiff then told him it would be desirable to get a letter from the bank to show that he was a debtor of the bank on behalf of the Company before proceeding with any petition for the winding up of the concern. The second interview on the subject also took place at witness' office after he had received an answer from the bank. Witness afterwards took all his papers to plaintiff's office, and plaintiff told him there was every prospect of him succeed- ing and gave him every encouragement to go on in the matter, stating that he had just and equit- i able grounds for proceeding. As for Mr. Brassey's letter of warning witness did not re- member seeing it. Witness did not want to run any risk in the matter, as there was so much in- volved, and he allowed plaintiff absolute freedom of action. He had nothing to do with the draft- ing of the petition, which was heard at Chester, on July 18th, 1901. When the case came on plaintiff simply represented that witness had just and equitable grounds he did not hear him say that his application was as a creditor. He heard the Judge say in reply that defendant was not an actual creditor, and not being pleased with the fruition of the case he said to plaintiff afterwards, It was unfortunate that you didn't know about these matters, and how I ought to be situated before filing a petition." Plaintiff replied that he did not think the Judge's decision was correct, but witness did not appeal-he had had enough of it. When he asked for the Assize case bill plaintiff sent in the petition case bill at the same time. Mr. Griffith It is a dangerous thing to ask for a bill (laughter.) Defendant, containing, said he gave a cheque for £ 65 in settlement of the Assize case bill, and with regard to the other bill he told plaintiff he was not going to have anything at all to do with that, that it was on plaintiff's advice that he went on with the petition, a that he had LOST QUITE ENOUGH MONEY over it. Plaintiff then left witness' office in a bit of a temper. He received the £ 175 referred to in notes. In subsequent correspondence he made plaintiff what he considered a fair offer, and to avoid litigation he sent him a cheque for {,17. He had to pays cost on both sides of the petition, amounting to 1:, 10 or £ 11. With regard to his own bill of £ 21 is. iod. against plaintiff he went through it in a very liberal way, and gave him credit for £ 9 9s. iod. Cross-examined Although plaintiff's call- book showed that witness called at plaintiff's office on March 28th, 1901, and that he was the first caller on April 2nd, lie persisted in saving that the first and second discussions with regard to the affairs of the Laundry Company took place at his (witness') office. The petition being a legal document he left it to plaintiff to draw up. It was true that he swore on affidavit that its contents were true, but he was not positive that he read it all through, Mr. David Did you know that it was alleged that the Company is indebted to the bank to the extent of £ 443 19s. nd. on overdrawn account, and that on April 1st the manager of the bank served the Company with a demand requiring payment ? Did you know that it was alleged that the Company was indebted to its servants for wages, and that although ap- plication has been made for the payment of the same those demands have not been satisfied ? Did you know that it was further alleged that the business of the Company had been carried on in an irregular and unbusinesslike manner, and that it was just and equita.b^: that the Company should be vyyund iii) ? Alr tiiese, are facts C. pressed in the English language, which you say you understand, yet will you swear that you did not read them through ? Defendant I don't swear that I went through them carefully. 1 left it to Mr. Jones. Further cross-examined witness said he was positive that plaintiff did not show him any County Court Practice Books, and point out to him certain clauses as he had alleged he did. When plaintiff called his attention, at the time he settled the Assize case bill, to the bill for which he was know being sued, he just glanced at the total and told plaintiff that he could not recognise it as he went on plaintiff's advice, which proved to be wrong. Plaintiff's whole statement about what he said when he called attention to the bill was incorrect. Why witness did not reply to plaintiff's first two letters asking for a settlement of the bill was because he had already repudiated it. When on August 20th last plaintiff wrote saying he must have a cheque for the balance that week, witness replied stating that he could not recognise plaintiff's account in the way in which it was sent in, and that he was willing to meet him in a reasonable spirit, but he must not expect him to pay anything like the amount which lie had charged. Witness did not ask plaintiff for a rendering of the contra account at the time he sent in his bill a bill for the amount against him was sent in the usual wav. He admitted there were several items in plaintiff's bill for which he had made no charge at all, and that it was quite likely that a great number of attend- ances by plaintiff upon him had not been included at all. PLAINTIFF MET HIM VERY CONSIDERABLY in the other bill, but he never expected a second, and plaintiff would not have had the chance of making it if he had known he was going to charge as he did for the first. It was shortly after the trial was over that it first occurred to witness that he might enter a claim against plaintiff for negligence. He could not give the exact date, but certainly after he got the bill he felt he had a claim. He told plaintiff in court that he was not acquainted with the law on the matter. Mr. David enquired whether the object in suspending the proceedings connected with the petition for the winding-up of the Company was not to get a buyer, and if it was not in order to facilitate a sale why was the petition with- drawn ?- I don't know," replied defendant. Don't you know you would have stood a very much worse chance of selling if the petition had been accepted ?-I didn't think so at the time. Are you so simple as that in matters of busi- ness ?—Yes. You are better versed in the flights of journal- ism, I suppose ? (laughter.) It was an advantage to you to get released from your liability at the bank ?—Yes, but I was not anxious to get the concern into liquidation, though Mr. Jones advised me that would be the best way for me to get out of my liability. Were you quite satisfied with what you did get ?—Yes. Have you ever discussed this business with anybody else ?—No. Is this the first claim for negligence you have made against a solicitor ?-I will pledge my word for that. Did you tell a friend of vours that vou in- tended to come into open court with this busi- ness and try to ruin Mr. Jones ?-No. What did you say then ?-I may have said if it came into court it might ruin him, Did you not say, If he dares to come into court, (I-- him, I will ruin him "?—No. Have you ever made any allegation against one of your co-directors, who got you to sign a previous document under a misapprehension ? ■—1 am quite willing to admit any letters I have written. Then (handing the defendant a book) read that piece of your own writing. Did you ever take any proceedings upon that business ?-No. BREEZY SPEECH BY MR. CRIFFITH. Mr. Griffith then addresed His Honour on behalf of his client. The charge against Mr. Jones, he said, was one of negligence, and after the cross-examination to which lie had just listened he submitted that, negligence or not, plaintiff was a most dangerous man to commit one's private letters, &c., to, seeing that if his client had any dispute with him he was liable in court to be examined upon the documents which had been given into his keeping. When they saw a man capable of such conduct as that to- wards a client, who had introduced other clients to him, and belonged to the same religious denomination as himself, they might begin with the presumption that he might be guilty of worse things than that sometimes. The point and substance of this case was not one of figures, but one of whether there was or was not negli- gence on plaintiff's part, and to a great extent the case was a matter of credibility between the two witnesses. When he cross-questioned plain- tiff he trusted he did so in a respectful manner, and not with the vehemence and rapping of knuckles and tables and other spiritual media— (laughter)—of which they had just seen such a display. He had no doubt that both parties were trying to put the facts of the case as they remembered them. He thought, however, that it was an obviously incredible statement which plaintiff made when he suggested that defendant preferred to get his solicitor's bills in a lump, and not in detail. He should think it was impossible to find such a man as that in all Europe. Defen- dant had been cross-questioned as to whether he remembered this thing and that, but he sub- mitted that it was his solicitor's business to re- member all those things for him. In the next place if, as he understood, the first interview in connection with all this business took place at defendant's office, he could readily understand plaintiff being in some difficulty. It seemed that in his own office plaintiff read statutes to his clients, but when in defendant's journalistic sanctum, where he hoped such things were not in evidence—(laughter)—he was at a loss for any authority upon the subject then under discussion. Counsel for plaintiff had made a point about his bill being very small, and including items not charged for. But intthe case of a solicitor's bill they could better understand charges being made without items (laughter.) So far as the small amount of the bill went it was to his mind some evidence that plaintiff knew perfectly well that defendant had been ill-advised. Continuing he contended that it was most unlikely that a man would persist in going on with litigation when he was told by his solicitor that he would not succeed. It appeared that plaintiff thought that if a demand was made on defendant by the bank he would be constituted a creditor. His Honour, however, upon hearing of defendant's petition, said that Mr. Amos, not having paid the bank, was not a creditor, and he therefore dismissed the petition. He submitted that the dismissal of the petition and the costs involved were really due to the fact that plaintiff did not properly appreciate what was necessary to a successful petition. He also submitted that never in the course of the whole negotiations did plaintiff ask defendant to pay the bank. Mr. David having replied on behalf o[ plaintiff. His Honour said he would reserve judgment.