N.B.
This Subpoena was served by JOSEPH LEONARD ON
within
named witness, Fersonally, on Vonusy the 26th. day of
May, 1902.
This Subpoena is to be returned into the Registrar's Office in- mediately after Service thereof, with a femorandum endorsed there- on of the Uste and Node of Service.
COPY.
Enclosure to A.
143
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONGKONG,
SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
Suit No. 588 of 1902.
Cheung Ut
V.
Cheung Kom sun.
SUBPOENA.
Hees and Bailiff expenses
$1.50.
hegistrar
Why was not this Sub-
poena served on Saturday 24th.
May T
(Intid.) T.S.S.
26.5.0%.
His Honour the Chief Justice.
I taxed a bill of costs last week, wherein
Mr. Hays was for Plaintiff and Mr. Looker for Defendant. The
point in dispute was whether the defendant having paid money
into Court in satisfaction of the claim, the Plaintiff was
justified in going into Court to have judgment entered for the
acount paid in and afterwards claim for his attendance in Court.
1 held that under the practice here the only way to enter judg-
ment was by going into Court and having done so, the Solicitor
was entitled to his costs, unless the Judge had decided other-
wise, which he had not done. On appeal against my decision on a
review of taxation, the Acting Fuisne Judge decided against me
and as I understood from Mr. Hays he decided that the Flaintiff
might have taken out a summons.
2.
Opinions differ, but with every respect to
the decision, whatever I may think myself, I think I ought to
have been called in by the Poisne Judge. such is the practice.
"Judges have invariably refused in my experience to interfere
with the Master's taxation unless palpably wrong and such is the
law, and when these young Solicitors (for the beads as a rule
do not appear) come to know that the Master's action can be set
at nought thus, Your honour will see how objectionable the pre-
sent step will prove to be.
(80.) J, W. Norton kyshe.
18.2.01.
The Registrar,
1 have read your minute but I do not think
it is a matter in which I can interfere.
(36.) J. W. Carrington.
18.8.01.