Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/581

 THE GREEN BAG

544

A PHILADELPHIA LAWYER IN THE LONDON COURTS IN THREE PARTS, ILLUSTRATED BY THE AUTHOR BY THOMAS LEAMING PART III COSTS HAVING in the last two numbers given some idea of the courts themselves, of the difference between solicitors and barris ters, the division of the latter into the com mon-law and chancery bars, with the functions of devils, juniors, K. C.'s, and specials, and the system of masters, some further observations of English methods remain to be recorded. Costs play an important part in all English litigation. The tendency since the time of the Stuarts has been constantly to increase them. By costs — as understood in Eng land — is not meant the official fees payable to the court officers, but a sum which the unsuccessful party is condemned to pay to the successful party. The aim is to in demnify the party whom the event proves to have been in the right. If he has in curred expense to obtain judgment for a sum of money, then he must be reimbursed by the other side who occasioned his out lay by refusal to pay. On the other hand, if an unjust claim has been made against him, the claimant must repay his expenses in resisting it. Part of these costs are taxed as the case proceeds. Thus, if one party summon an other before a master prior to trial, to ob tain an order for the production of some document, the master imposes costs — say, £2.10.0 — upon the part}' who refused to produce, or upon the party who the master finds has unwarrantably demanded the production. The theory here is to dis courage unnecessary and harrassing inter locutory proceedings. But the principal costs "await the event," i.e., follow the course of the final judgment. They include an allowance for counsel fees,

which, however, is not always as much as the amount paid therefor. For if a litigant has indulged in the luxury of an unusual array of counsel he must do so at his own expense, and the master only allows what he should have laid out in fees. Thus a petty action may involve some personal pique, and the plaintiff insist upon his solici tor retaining a K. C. at 50 guineas and a junior at 35 guineas, which, with 3 guineas for the consultation, would be 88 guineas. The defendant; however, is content with a junior at "3 & i." If the plaintiff suc ceeds, the master will not allow him the 88 guineas, but will decide that the more modest armament of the defendant would have been sufficient. But the costs are, upon the whole, very high. In an ordinary action to recover a moderate sum — say, £200 — the costs will generally amount to £50. In a recent action to recover £60, balance of the purchase price of a motor car, costs were claimed of over £400, and actually allowed in a sum over £200; but this was most exceptional, due to the unreasonable stubbornness with which a just claim was resisted, and is by no means typical. It shows, however, the possibilities of the system. In theory, it seems quite reasonable that the party in the wrong ought to reimburse the party in the right, for having vexatiously put him to expense in obtaining his due. In practice, however, it may be that the pros pect of large costs stimulates unjust suits by impecunious plaintiffs, themselves un able to respond in costs if defeated, against richer defendants vulnerable for whatever the chances of war may have in store for them. Upon putting this to English law yers, they will be found unable to answer, except by saying that if the plaintiff is un able to give security for costs he may, in