,v ^y IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I "- IIIIIM I JO "™^= u 114 2.5 1.8 1.25 1.4 1 1.6 -• r — — ■ — ■ ► Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (710) 872-4503 V iV ^^ ■i'^ <> o^ pi?' x^ '^^ jJSf ^^ w C/u "/, '^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D V D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicula I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured map»/ Cartes g6ographiqi>es en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or hiack)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas dt6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires: L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6td possible de se procurer. Les details de cat exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue inibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. Th« to tl I I Coloured pages/ n/ n Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages restauries et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqu^es I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~7| Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ The posi of tl film Oris beg the sion oth( first slon or II □ Pages detached/ Pages ddtach^es Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale de I'impression •I"? ludes supplementary material/ wOmprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible The shal TINI whi( Map difff entii begi right requ met! Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partlellement obscurcies pa> un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de facon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 7 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmed here has btt«n reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Law Library Yoric University Toronto The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce it la gintrositA de: Law Library York University Toronto Les images suivantes ont M reproduites avec ie plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettet* de rexemplaire fiimt. et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sont filmAs en commen^ant par Ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par Ie second plat, salon Ie cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmto en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^»> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la derniAre image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie cas: Ie symbols — »> signifie "A SUIVRE". Ie symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les carteSr pkanches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmte A des taux de rMuction diffirents. Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, il est film* A partir de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas. en prenant Ie nombre d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mithodo. 32X 1 2 3 i ' ■* : 2 3 4 5 6 liiiiiiaiirta^wiM Mw i fliHHwk^ mm. ^•V .1/.- 'i(t!tMdtMQuuum.i^ •■We :«: "^ l*s=s» Z?' p ^^"3 <^^ TO THK MEMBERS OF THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT, GREETING. *^ '4 # * t 1 y ^^ . - To the Members of the Ontario Government Gentlemen, — Shortly after entering upon the duties of my office on the 1st day of August, 1875, I noticed that different sums were charged by Lawyers as their fee for issuing Writs of Execution out of the same Court, and nearly for the same amount ; I made inquiry and found that the f-ractice prevailed all over the Province, I inquired of one of the Taxing Masters if there was a fixed tarifi' of fees for issuing Writs of Execution, or was each Lawyer at liberty to charge what he pleased ; I was told there was a tariff of fees for issuing Writs of Execution as for the issuing of all other ])apers, but that the Lawyers as a rule disregarded the legal tariff of fees and made their own tariff. I obtained a copy of the legal tariff of fees for issuing Writs of Execution in the Superior and County Court, and collected the fees under that tnriff and no more. I never robbed for myself, and I failed to see why I should rob to enrich others. I found that some of the Sheriffs collected these illegal fees in ignorance, believing it to be their duty to collect the amount endorsed on the Writ. Other Sheriffs made the i ollection of these illegal fees knowingly, but under fear, as they said, truthfully, "If we do not collect these illegal fees the Lawyers will give us no papers to serve, and will ruin us." The truth of this was verified in my own office ; I had a County Court Writ for $200 against an honest man who was doing his best to pay it. I noticed that $10 was charged for the Writ instead of $3 the legal fee. I instructed my bailiff not to press the man as he was paying as fast as he could, and to collect no more than $3 for the Writ. The money was made and a cheque, including $3 for the Writ, was sent to the Lawyer. On the following day he came to my office and in an imperious manner demanded an explanation why the $10 had not been collected ? In other words, why had I not robbed the litigant to the extent of S7 for his benefit. I told him. I had collected the legal fees, and would do no more for him or any other. His reply was that he would give me no more papers to serve, and I must do him justice to say he kept his word. I received returns from 18 Counties, showing that the overcharge for Writs and Eenewals on 3,692 County Court Writs in the hands of 18 Sheriffs was $20,766.02, being an average overcharge of $5.60 on each Writ. < \ The same 18 Sheriffs held 1,219 Superior Court Writs, the overcharge on which for Writs and Renewals was $8,778.72, being an average overcharge of $7. 20 on each Writ. The illegal charges on Superior and County Court Writs in the 18 Counties was $29,554.74, and as there are 18 more Counties including Toronto, we may safely double the above sum, mailing $59,109.48, being the amount of illegal fees collected annually through the Slieriffs. Having ascertained the extent of thj wrongs to which litigants were subjected, I suggested to the Government the appointment of an Inspector of Sheriffs' otiices as the best means of ending the wrong-doing. An Inspector was not appointed till 1884, and then he found matters as bad as I had represented them, as shown by the following instructions to Sheriffs : INSTRUCTIONS TO SHERIFFS. From John Winchester, Esq., Inspector of Offices, Toronto. OsGOODE Hall, Toronto, Oct 8th, 1884. Sir, — I have the honor to inform you that whilst inspecting Sheiiflf.-.' Offi( es Inuiy. I have found that il has been ainnost the invariable practice with some S; 1 .i'.ors to endorse upon Writs of Execution against (ioods and Lands, as "'/ . fees for such Writs, the sums of $io, $12, (and in some cases even nMre) in the High Courts of Justice, and $6, $8 and $10 in the Ciuiity Court, and similar sums for renewals ; and that the Sheriffs have been in the habit of collecting such sums, believing it to be their duty to obey the instructions thus given. .Sheriffs in so acting, render themselves liable to be proceeded again^t, and in the future must refuse to levy for more than the legal charges, which are as follows : — In High Courts of Justice, Goods or Lands Writs (original or alias) each $5 00 " " " Goods or Lands Writs, Renewals each. 3,75 In County Court, Goods or Lands Writs [original or alias] each 3.00 " " Goods or Lands Writs, Renewals 2.25 Where money is made under Goods Writs no fees whatever for Lands Writs are to be collected. See Revised Statutes of Ontario, Cap. 66, Sec. ly, page 803. Endorsements on Writs must be made on face of Writ with fees for Writ added. If no costs mentioned in Writ, and debt or damages given, no costs other than fees for Writ are to be levied. If no debt, or damages, or costs mentioned in the Writ, then no costs or fees of any kind are to be levied. I have the honor to be, sir. Your Obedient Servant, JOHN WINCHESTER, Inspector of Offices. To MR, SHERIFF McKELLAR, HAMILTON. Hamilton, July 4th, 1889. ARCH. McKELLAE, Sheriff. 8 On a preceding page I showed how the lawyers utilized the Sheriff's to collect for them thousands of dollars of illegal fees on Writs of Execution. I shall now show how the same lawyers practiced on the Sheriffs, taking nearly half their fees for serving of Process, and at the same time collected much more from the persons served than they took from the Sheriff". Now for the proof. I entered on the duties of my office 1st August, 1875, The net receipts of the ofhce for the whole year was $3,692.11. Of this amount, the receipts for serving Writs, &c., was $2118.91. In 1876, the first whole year I was in office, the net receipts were $3618.19 ; of this sum $1682.88 was for serving Writs, &c. The receipts for serving Process in 1876 was $436.03 less than in 1875. In 1876 I noticed that a number of cases belonging to the County were tried in my Courts, in which neither defendants nor witnesses were served through my office. As the Ontario Legislature met early in January,1877, 1 thought the speediest and best way to ascertain the extent to which the serving of Writs and other papers was carried by process-serving Attor- neys would be through a return asked for by the Legislature. With this end in view, I gave my friend, Mr. Sinclair, M. P. P. for North Bruce, a motion asking for a return of the number of Bills in Chancery and Writs of Summons that were issued out of the Superior and County Courts during the year 1876, and also a return of the number of such jjapers as were served by the Sheriff's. I did not apprehend any opposition to the motion, for the cost of obtaining the information I asked for would be trifling. On the evening of the 10th January, '77, Mr. Sinclair brought up his motion, and contrary to my expectation it was met in the most hostile spirit by a number of the members of the Legal Profession, who spoke as follows : Mr. Lauder, M. P. P. for East Grey, said : "I object to compelling persons making services through the Sheriff when the Attorney would make the service for nothing." Mr. Deacon, M. P. P., said : "If services were made by the Profession it v/as at the expense of the Profession itself." Hon. Mr. Hardy, Prov. Sec, said : "That in Brantford it was an exceptional case that a Writ was served by another than the Sheriff; the law was plain that no gentleman could make a charge for the service of Process." Mr. Meredith moved : "That the motion be amended by adding the following words, viz., "and also the cases, if J) 1 ^ <•-• any, in which fees for service of Process havo been taxed, where service has not been effected by the Sheriff, and also tlie fees })ai(l to the Sheriff for seivice in each case." Mr. Sinclair's motion was then dropped. In the Olohe of the Gth February, 1877, a letter appeared over the signat^ire, "A Practicing Lawyer" (T discovered his name is CliarHe ])urand) ; he said, "Now I know as a lawyer that lawyers are in the habit of serving many jjapers, including Writs, and they do it for two reasons, first, to expedite business (for if the papers go into the Sheriff's hands they are likely to remain there a long time) and secondly to decrease the disbursements of the suit ; lawyers cannot charge and do not for serving Writs and Subpccnas." In the Globe of IGth February, 1877, a letter appeared over the signature of Francis Rye, of Barrie, who said, "I have never known a case of a Solicitor charging his client with a Sheriff's fee, or with a fee equal to what a Sheriffs fee would be, for service of a Bill in Chancery where the Sheriff has not been employed, and as to charging Sheriffs' fees besides his own fees for the service, (which would be a fraudulent over- charge), this I need hardly say is a practice entirely unknown to my profession.' ppnrs f.n l]pvf> |if,gi^ f^ygnffr?" ^>j'^<^^^f i»Tr-;f.j>i^ f ^ln'r, p | ..^.-.1.- ai^d I regret to have to say that not only were the statements above quoted untrue, but in making them the above-named parties were traducing the character of the Sheriffs. When the defendants demurred to the payment of the Bill of Costs as being too high, the invariable answer was that they had saved him the Sheriff's fee, that had the Sheriff made the service the costs would have been much higher. A number of other anonymous correspondents wrote in the same strain, all declaring that my sole object in asking for the return was to increase Sheriffs' fees. These false accusations put me on my mettle, and I determined to show the public who did increase the fees and burdens to litigants, and I have succeeded. I desire to draw special attention to the fact that all the parties whose oral and written utterances 1 have given justify themselves for serving Writs, Subpoenas, &c., on the plea that they make the services for nothing, "at the expense of the profession itself," that they cannot charge for the service, and do not charge Sheriff's fees, or a sum equal to what a Sheriff's fee would be, (as that would be a n taxed, uid also ' Mr. ippeared ^ered his a lawyer ncliuling expedite they are decrease [irge and appeared I, "I have it with a ee would ff has not sides his lent over- unknown g Masfeef tatements ve-named I. When 1 of Costs they had made the 3 wrote in in asking tiese false d to show I litigants, tention to utterances jubpcenas, )lhing, "at not charge , or a sum i^ould be a 6 fraudulent overcharge.) Even if the services were made as they state, would it bo dcfcnsiblt! ? (Certainly not, inasmuch as it would as efl'ectually (hiprive the Sherills of tiu-ii' f«'Hs and means of living as if the money was taken from tlu'ir tills. Having failed to obtain a return through the Legisliituie of th(^ number of I'llls in C'liaiieery and Writ.s of Summons issued out of the Superior and County Courts in 1S76, I determined not to be beaten, and before the. close of 1877 I had as complete a return as if I had got it on Mr. Sinclair's motion. The number issued was 20,380. Attorney received for issimij,' 6,556 Writ.s in Superior Courts at $700 $ 45,^92 00 Attorney received for issuinjj 2,579 Hills in Chan- cery at $7 00 . . . . 18,053 00 Attorney receivni for issuin{^ 1 1,245 County Court Writs at $4 75 53,41300 Total for issuing. .. .$117,358 00 Had the Sheriff served the 20,380 Bills and Writs their fees would be as follows : Serving 6,556 Writs in .Superior C'urt a' $2. 70. $ 17,701 20 " 2,579 Bills in Chancery at $2 70 6,96330 " 11,245 County Court Writs at $1.55 ••• '7»429 75 $ 42,094 25 Add Lawyers' fees fu issuing 20,380 Bills and Writs 117,35800 Total fill issuing and serving 20,380 Writs. . $lS9,4i2 25 A return from the Sheriffs showed that of the 20,380 Bills and Writs they only served 11,000, as follows : Sheiifts serveil 3. 043 .Sup'r C uri Wills at $2 70 .$ 8,221 50 " " 1,288 Hills in Chancer* at $2. 70 . 3.477 60 •• '• 6,733 County C'>urt Wri's at $1.55 lOi436iS 11,066 $22,135 25 Of the 20,380 Bills and Writs the Sheriffs were deprived of the serving and fees of 9,314, viz : Lawyers served 3, 5 ll Sup'r Court Writs at $2 70. . $ 9,479 70 •• '• 1,291 Bills in Chancery at J2. 70.. 3.485 70 •• " 4,512 County Ct. Writs at $1.55. . 6,99360 9.314 $'9, 959 00 The $19,959.00 was within $1,088.12 of being half the Sheriffs' fees if they had served the 20,380 Writs. .1^ i 1 ?! But if rrocoss-stTviiijj; AttorneyH made the services for notliinjif, oi' ut the eXjieiiHc ol' (lie j.roltHsion il.self, as we were told verliuliy and llirougli the colniiis of the jiress was the case, then the ^ID/JoD.OO taken fioni the SherilVs was saved to the litigants, and neither the litigants nor the ])ul)lic had any cause of complaint. Although ihe foregoing deelaiations were made hy mend)ers of Parliament orally, and hy memherw of the legal ])r()ft'.ssi(tn thidugh the ]>ul)lio press, I did not helieve them, for why should they do the; Sheriifs' work for nothing, for hy so doing it was as damaging to the SherilVs as if the money was taken from their tills, and I thought it very unlikely that nu'ii who would utilize myself and other Sherills to collect a large amount of diegal fees for them, would do our work for nothing, or would fail to collect the illegal fees themselves as the opjiort unity to do so was giver» tlu-m. So strong was my conviction that thei'«! was wrong doing in the practice of serving Process by Attorneys that I determined to use all lawful and proper means to ascertain the facts of the case, and I succeeded. I had the tariff of rrocess-serving Attorneys in the Superior Court long before I got them in the County Court. Here they are ; Style of Cause or Name of Attorneys. Samuel McNair j Georingt& Whipple ) 1. Lauder & Proctor 2. Thomas Deacon.. 3. Hardy, Wilkes \ & Jones j 4. Meredith & ( Meredith ) 5. Charles Durand.. 6. Francis Rye Amount Collected by A ttorney. Attorneys* Legal Fees. Sheriffs* Legal Fees. Collected from Litigants. 1 2 3 4 13 37 7 00 2 70 3 67 10 20 4 75 1 55 3 90 ! 7 00 4 75 1 55 1^80 10 40 4 75 1 55 4 10 10 09 4 75 1 55 3 79 8 50 4 75 1 55 2 20 7 48 4 75 1 55 1 18 53 67 28 50 9 30 15 97 Sup.Ct. C'y Ct. C'y Ct. C'y Ct. C'y Ct. C'y Ct. C'y Ct. Th and Thi to this Act the on Sh« tha We r vices for s \v«' wrie Mi \VU8 tlui wiis saved lultlic. had nmdo by f llu- legal i!vt! them, iiiu, for by h(j m(iiu\v V uidiktdy ShcrilVs to iihl do oui ilU'<;al fe(!S them. So »iii<^ in the U'terinined ,h(! facts of t'ss-servin}^ jot them ill 30 .s> 67 90 80 10 79 20 18 Sup.Ct. C'y Ct. C'y Ct. C'y Ct. C'y Ct. C'y Ct. C'y Ct. 97 Column No. 1 in the foregoing tnhle shovis the amount charged iiy bau ycrs for issuing and s'-rving VVrils of Sum- mons in the II. C. J. and C. ('. Column No. 2 shows the Lawyers' legal fee for issuing a Writ of Summons. Column No. .'> shows th(! Sheriffs' legal fee for .serving a Writ. ('olumn No. 4 shows the amount of wliieh tlie |)erson served was rohhed. It will hi^ ob.served that for every i?2 70 taken from the Sheriff for services in tin; H. C. J., $:\.67 is taken from the person served; and for every i^I.'i.') taken from the Sheriff for services in the County Court, $2Ji*') is taken from the person .served. Thesis astounding results are jiroveu by the foregoing table. The six gentlemen nd'erred to there who said they made the services fcr nothing, &c., made six services in the County (Jourt for v/hieh thcsy charged and collected $9.50 belonging to the Shevilfs, and Si 5.97 IxdfUiging to the ])ersons served, in all l?25 27 that did not Ixdong to them. The average was ii*4.2l wrongfully taken from each ; some took more. Hardy, Wilk(ss & . Jones pocketed i5l.55 belong- ing to the Sherilf, and S4. 10 belonging to tln^ person served, in all §5.65 that did not belong to them. Had any othisr class of uw.n taken tin; same amount of monev not belonging to them, even to appeases the gnawings of hunger, every one of them would be .serving a term in the Central Prison ; why should a different law be apjdied to these transgressors ? Had the Hon. A. S. Hardy been a nuin of high princijde when he saw the unlawful charges made by his law j)artnershe would have blushed and repudiated them, and would have used his oflicial position to enact such laws as would fii'otect Sheritfs and litigants from the gross wrongs practiced upon them. This was not done ; the determination was to punish me and to do it in such a way that the public could not see it ; with this object in view Sec. 1 of Order VI. of the Judicature Act of 1881 was enacted. The Lawyers however act as if the section applied to all Sheriffs, as proven by the accom- panying return, showing liow the services and fees were divided between Lawyers and Sheriffs in 1888. Had the Government had the courage to have put the following rider on Sec. 1 of Order VI. it would have protected all other Sheriffs without any relief to me, viz : "Provided always that Sec. 1 of Order VI. shall only apply to the County of Wentworth during the incumbency of the present Sheriff." p *#4" i ^ ^ 1 IV- !l 8 The Government did what has no precedent, they made a law by which tlie whole of the ft2s for serving of Process may be tnken from officers appointed by themselves, and placed in their own pockets and the pockets of other Lawyers ; thus rewanlini'- the transsfressors of the law. That the Gove.-nment as constituted in 1881 {when Sec. 1 of OrderVI. was puosed) is fairly open to the charge of having made a law to benefit themselves, can clearly be established. In 1881 the Govornnu'nt was composed of five members, four lawyers and one layman. I know from experience that Mr. Wood, the layman, took no interest in any law relating to legal matters, and therefore is in no way r(isponsible for the law of whicli I complain. The other four members were Hon. O. Mowat, Hon. T. B. Pardee, Hon. Mr. Fraser and Hon. A. S. Hardy, all lawyers and senior partners in law firms, from whicli 1 assume they draw a share of the profits. It will readily be st m that legalizing the serving of Process by Lawyers would increase the fees and emoluments of the offices, and would consequently increase the dividends of the senior partners — the makers of the law. I wish it distinctly understood that I make no such charge against Hon. Mr. Mowat though theoretically responsible. I am confident tliat had he been left to his own judgment no such Act as that I com])Ltin of would have been put on the Statute book. Few men know Mr. Mowat better than I do, havinu sat with him in Parliament for years before Confederation, and afterwards as a colleague in the Ontario Government. 1 have had the fullest op])' ntunity of knowing him in ana out of otlice, and can tri;thfully assert that a more honest, upright or unselfieh man never ruled this or any other country ; his steady aim is to do that which is just and right in all his public and private acts. Now that he has a number of new colleagues who are in no way rusixmsible for the scandalous Legislation we com])lain of, 1 confidently exjtect that on our case being submitted, showing the gross and indefensible wrongs practiced on Sheriffs and litigants, he wiU be supported by them in passing a law that will be just to all parties. In March, 1889, I received returns showing the number of Writs of Summons issued out of the H. C. J. and C. C, in 38 Counties in 1888, and also returns of the number of Witnesses examined in said Courts, and showing how the services and the fees were divided between the Lawyers and Sheritis ; 1 ] » I c it, they made a ving of Process hemselves, and other Lawyers ; LW. That the ^..1 of Order VI. having made a established. In i members, four jrience that Mr. law relating to )onsible for the [• members were Mr. Frasdr and partners in law ve of the profits, rving of Process loluments of the the dividends aw. I wish it h charge against onsible. I am idgrment no such ut on the Statute nan I do, having I'e Confederation, irio Government. o- him in ana out •e honest, upright ler country ; his id right in all his a number of new or the scandalous xi)ect that on our and indefensible nts, he wiU be ■j will be just to )wing the number C. J. and C. C. in of the number of showing how the L the Lawyers and High Court of Justice. In i8S8— 7,55s Writs of Summons were issued out of this Court *' ~5>i4' Witnesses were examined in said Court. County Court. In 1888— 4,204 Writs were issued out of this Court. " — 2,802 Witnesses were examined in this Court. Writs and Subtcenas Served by Sheriff in H. C. J. Of the 7,555 Writs the 38 Slieriffs served 2,655. " 2,655 served by Sheriffs, the Sheriff of Toronto served 546 (nearly one-fifth) at $2. 70 $ 1,474 20 " 5.541 Witnesses examined 38 Sheriffs served 603. " 603 Witnesses examined, the Sheriff of Toronto served 177 at $1 45 256 65 Total received by Sheriff of Toronto for serving Writs and SubpaMias $ 1,73085 Of the 2,655 W'rits served by Sheiiffs, 37 Sheriffs served 2,109 lit $2 70 ^ $ 5,694 30 " 603 Witnesses examined, 37 Sheriffs served 426 at $1.45. 617 70 Total received by 37 Sheriffs for serving Writs and Subpcenas in H. C.J $ 6,31200 The $6,312.00 would give $170.00 to each of the 37 Sheriffs. Writs and Subpcenas Served by Lawyers in II. C. J. Of the7,555 Writs, Lawyers served 4,900 at Sheriffs' fees, $2.70.,$ i3,2;;o 00 Serving 4,900 Writs at $3.67, (fee charged person served) 1 7,983 00 Of \hc 5,541 Witnesses the Lawyers served 4,938 at $1.45 7, 160 10 Received by Lawyers for serving Writs and Subpoenas in the M. C. J $ 38,373 10 County Court Writs and Subpcenas Served by Shkrikfs, Of the 4,204 Writs issued, 37 Sheriffs served 1,756 at $1.55...$ 2,721 So " 2,802 Witnesses, 37 Sheriffs seived 288 at $1.45 417 60 $ 3 >I39 40 Tlic $3,139 40 would give each of the 37 Sheriffs $84,85. WrIIS and Sulil'tKNAS SERVED BY LAWYERS IN CoUNTY CoHRT. Of the 4,204 Writs issued, I awyers seivcd 2,448 at $1.55 Slieriffs' fee $ 3,794 40 .Serving 2,448 Writs at $2 66 (fee charged person served) 6,51 1 68 Of the 2,802 Witnesses, Lawyers serve.l 2,514 at $1.45 3»64S 30 $ 13,951 38 I i i ? 10 RECAPITULATION. In 1888 the Sheriff of Toronto received for serving Writs and Subpa-nas in II. C. J $ 1,730 85 In 1888 37 Sheriffs received for serving Writs and Subpoenas in H. C. J $ 6,312 00 In 1 888 37 Sheriffs received for serving Writs and Subpoenas in C.C 3. > 39 40 ^ Tt* «■■ T"t^^ r ec'd by 37 Sheriffefors»rving Writs ^ *•' ahd HllUlJUmiaS m H. LTjTin '88 $ 9,451 4° The $9,451.40 divided equally among the 37 Sheriffs would give each of them the munificent sum of $ 255 41 Tlie Lawyers received for serving Writs and Subpoenas in H. C. J. and C. C $ 52,324 48 Of the $52,324.48, $27,828.80 belonged to the Sheriffs, and $24,494.68 belonged to the person served. Tlie $27,829.80 taken by the Lawyers would have given to each of the 37 Sheriffs the sum Df $ 752 15 And with a just law would have saved the litigants $24,494 68 Lawyers received $5,072.48, more than five limes as much as was received by 37 Sheriffs. I now beg to lay before you a statement of the fees I received, and the fees that were taken from me since 1st January, 1876, to the 1st January, 1889, (a period of 13 years.) In 1876 and four succeeding years the serving of Writs and Subpccnas issued out of the Superior Court and County Courts should be served by the Sheriff or his officer, as })roven by the law, and the decisions of the Courts as found in the Law Reports of Mr. Justice Draper and Hon. J. H. Cameron, showing that the services were set aside because not made by a Sheriff or his officer. In 1876 (the first whole vear I held the office) my net income was t3,G18.19. "Of this sum Sl,682.88 was for serving of Process, and was S436.03 less than in 1875. In 1877 I di.scovered the cause of the falling off in the receipts from the serving of Process. In 1877 I obt. ineda return showing that of 20,380 Bills and Writs issued in 1876 the Lawyers had served 9,314, which deprived the Sheriffs of $19,959.19 of their legal fees, and collected a further sum of $29,813.23 from the person served for serving the same 9,314 Bills and Writs ; this is jn-oven by the Lawyers tariff of fees as shown in column 4 of a table on a preceding page. The loss of the $19,959.19 wasanavemge loss of $539.43 to each ona of the 37 Sheriffs in Ontario. Had I received $539 43, my share of the $19,959.19, my net income in 1876 would have been k( I 11 its and $ 1.730 85 oenas in $ 6,312 00 oenas in 3. '39 40 g Writs 8 $ 9>45' 40 would $ 25541 Bnas in $ 52.32448 iffs, and I to each $ 752 15 $24,494 68 much as ;ment of the fees m from me since 889, (a period of years the serving iuperior Court and leriff or his officer, 3 of the Courts as Draper and Hon. es were set aside r. In 1876 (the net income was as for serving of 875. In 1877 I 1 the receipts from d a return showing 187G the Lawyers fiff'sof i8!19,959.l9 sum of $29,813.23 ne 9,314 Bills and iff of fees as shown e. Tlie loss of the - to each ona of the $530 43, my share 6 would have been $4,157.62, and of that amount $2,221.31 (more than half my income) would have been for the serving of Process. The $19,959.19 and much more has been taken yearly since 1876 down to the present time. $3,618.19 was, as I have, stated, my net income in 1876, and it was the same in 1877 and 1878. In 1879 the Act 42 Vic, Chap. 20, which transfers the sale of mortgaged lands from Sheriffs to Lawvci.s was passed; this Act occasions me a yearly loss of $150.00. In 1880 the Act 43 Vic, Chap. 8, increasing the jurisdiction of the Division Court was passed ; this Act occasions nic a yearly loss of $662.22 on the serving of Process, and a yearly loss of $250.16 on the sittings of the Courts; both sums make $912.38. In 1880 the Act 43 Vic, Chap. 35, which transfers the removal of persons from Gaols to Provincial Institutions from Sheriffs to Provincial Bailiff's, occasions me a yearly loss of $125.00. The three Acts of 1879 and 1880 occasion me a yearly loss of $1,187.38, and reduced my income from $3,618.19 to $2,430.81. I was hopeful that the reduction had ended, but I was sadly mistaken. It was evidently decreed by a majority of the members of the Government that for my temerity in exposing the})lund(n'iiig (or should I say robbery) practiced by a large number of the members of the legal profession on Sheriffs and litigants, \ must be punished, or what would be better still — ruined ; it must be done in such a way that the public could not see it, and I must do them the justice to say that they have succeeded to their hearts content. In 1881 the Judicatun; Act was passed, and the following Jesuitical and — to the uninitiated — misleading section was inserted in it, under which all the services may be made by Lawyers. Hon. A. S. Hardy is credited with being the inventor of Sec. 1, and is entitled to the patent for it. Here is the Sec. : ORDER VI. Service of Writ ok Summons. (First mode of Service. ) "ist. No service of Writ shall be required where Defendant by his "Solicitor accepts service, and undertakes to enter an appearance." The idea intended to be conveyed to the public by the inventors of Sec. 1, is : 1st, that it saves the Sheriil's lees to the litigant, (which they always say are very heavy); 2n(l, to expedite business ; and, lastly, to keep down the disburse ments of the suit. A refe rence to the Lawyers' tariff of fe'-\s given ^1 a former Xe tto t^shows how such declarations are kept. It is pitiful to find men resort to such subterfuges to pocket other people's money. -/" 1 I 12 r ^ ^ N ^ >« T I shall now give my own case as a good illustration of the working of Sec. 1 : At the close of 1 880 my net income was !?2,4;30.81. At the close of 1881— the first year Sec. I was in force — my income was reduced to 81,430.81. The Lawyers in that year gobbled up SI, 000 of my fees for the serving of Process ; that M'as all they could take, and they have taken such fees ever since. Hon. A. S. Hardy, who is very solicitous about Sheriffs' interests, saw that taking the fees from them — as wouhl be the case under S ; and the Lawyers Vcccived a yearly average of .^1,449.40. Txith anionnts make oo,Gl8.11), the net income I reccivcil in ISTC), 1877 and IS7S. While Air. Mowat's Act is of threat assistance lo myself and many other Sheriffs, it is of little value to the smaller and pooler (AUinties wlu.'ie ihey have very few prisoiu'is to discharge, and very few sittings of the Judges' Criminal Court. There is l)Ut one way to do justice to all Sherilfs and protect litigants, and that is to repeal those unprcce lented specimens of Legislation known as Si'c. 1 unished the l)etetectivi\ and legislated tlie fees of (dticers iipjiointcd by themselves into tlieir own jjockets and into the pockets of other Ijawyers. Xo other country })resents such a specimen of Legislation. The only way to protect litigants and Sheriffs is t(j secure to the Simriffs the servin^L' of all Wi'its of Summons and Sub])(euas, and then provide that the Sheriffs in tlu! wealthier (Jounties shall conta'ibute certain per centages of their incomes to increase the incomes in poorer Counties as projiosed in my Bill. i'iVen if tlie i.awyers had the serving of I'rocess pri(»r to LS77 when I obtained their tariff of fees, would it be defensible to let tb.ein continue the services after that dat(!, when I discovered that a law firm (of which a member of the ( rovernnient is a senior partner) charged and collected Sl0.4i.) for issuing and serving a County Court Writ of Summons, on whieh there was no mileage. ( !)f the i?10.40, S4.75 was their own proper fee for issuing the Writ, i$1.55 would be the Sheiilf's ])ro[)er fee for uy serving the Writ, and the balance (^iHtftttJ Oelonged to tlie *^T*'^ person served. Thus the iirm, in addition to the S4.75 belonging to themselves, collected a further sum of So.^ (gf belonging to tlie Sheriff and the person served. Should Sherilfs and litigants be subiected to such treatment i As the law stands the Sheriffs of Ontario are placed in a most humiliating position. Instead of receiving Writs and Subpoenas as a matter of right, and serving them as part of their duty, these papers under kiec. 1 of Order VI. are placed in the hands of the Lawyer to give, or withlu)ld and serve them himself if Ire clio(>ses to do so, and at his own tacitf of feec. Such was not the practice until recently in Ontario. In England, Scotland and Ireland all I'rocess are served by the duly appointed ofhcer of the Court. It was so in Ontario J I 1 14 as late as the days of Judge Draper and Hon. John Hillyard Cameron, whose Law Reports show that services were set aside because they were not made by the Sheriff or his officer. The same law is in force in Georgia, Florida, and in many — if not all — the other States. The Division Court Clerks and Bailiffs are fully protected, no services being valid unless made by a Bailiff of the Court. Surely the Sheriffs are not asking too much in asking that they and their officers shall be given the same protection as is given the Clerks and Bailiffs of the Division Court. I have now fully explained the wrongs practiced on Sheriffs and litigants, and have also submitted my Scheme for their removal, a Scheme which, while protecting Sheriff and litigants from the plundering practiced upon them, would be just to the Lawyers. My aim is to have a law that will secure to the Lawyers and Sheriffs their legal fees and no more, and prevent them doing wrong the one to the other, or to the litigants. If the Government refuse or neglect to grant the Legislation I ask for, I must then submit the facts of my case to my old friends in Ontario, and ask their verdict upon it. I am confident they will not approve of using their money to recoup the Sheriffs in part for the fees taken from them and given to Lawyers as provided under the Act 45 Vic, Chap. 11, as shown to be done by the statement hereunto annexed. I SI frf dc Hamilton, July 4th, 1889. AECH. McKELLAR, Sheriff. '^*ti. hn Hillyard ies were set eriff or his >ri(la, and in ision Court vices beinsr Surely the at they and as is given racticed on my Scheme ing Sheriff bem, would w that will ■ees and no le other, or neglect to it the facts leir verdict e of using fees taken er the Act statement LAR, Slieriff-, 15 As many people are under the impression that all the Sheriffs have large incomes, I shall correct that impression by placing facts and figures before them. There are 41 Sheriffs in Ontario, 20 of them have incomes from the receipts of their offices averaging from $1,879.00 down to S644.00, as shown by the Inspector's report. lO II 12 13 14 15 NAME OF COUNTY. NAML OF SHERSFF. Lincoln Thomas Dawson $ Dufferin Thomas Bowles Peterborough James A. Hall Wellington Robert McKim Brant VV. J . Scarfe Welland G. \V. Duncan Norfolk E. Deeds Haldimand Robert N. Davis ($ioo additional paid by the Government.) Thunder Bay James Meek ($i,ooo additional paid by the Government.) Peel Robert Broddy Frontenac Wm. Furguson Renfrew James Morris Prescott and Russell A. Hagar ($500 additional paid by the Government.) Oxford Geo. Perry Ontario S. F. Paxton 16 Lennox and Addington . . O. T. Pruyn. 18 IQ 20 Halton M. Clements Lanark James Thomson Algoma VV. H. Carney ( $1,400 additional paid by the Government ) Prince Edward VVm. H. Gillespie ( $2oo additional paid by the Government.) 1,879 51 1,770 27 1,729 30 1,652 02 1.635 76 1,601 .S6 i,55« 05 1,516 66 1.479 14 1,446 60 1,440 23 1.397 55 1,373 98 1. 355 14 1,330 63 1,298 55 1.274 89 1,242 3« 965 89 644 99 $28,593 10 NoTB — I got all these figures and payments from the Inspector's report for 1888, and assume the payments were made by authority of the Act 45 Vic, Chap. II, passed by Hon. A. S. Hardy The $28,593.10 if equally divided would give each of the 20 Sheriffs a yearly income of Sl,429.65. This amount is slightly increased by distributing $3,200 of the people's money among five of the Sheriffs. With all this assistance how poorly 17 of the Sheriff's are paid ; and what defence can be made for taking the people's money to supplement any Sheriff's income when the SherifiC's own fees (if secured to them and distributed as proposed in my Bill) would give every one of the 41 Sheriffs now in Ontario a fair income. In 1888 the Lawyers imcketed $27,829.80 that belonged to tlie Sheriffs, and $24,494.68 belonging to the persons served. The present system is an ingenious device to increase Lawyers' fees at the expense of Sheriffs, litigants and the taxpayers of Ontario, and must be changed. ARCH. McKELLAR, Hamilton, July 4th, 1889. Sheriff. 16 I now bocr to suhmit my })ro])ose(l Act for regulating tho sewing ol' Process in tlu* Su])erior, Surrogate and County Court of Ontario : — The (lilliculty wliicli would iip])ear in the way of making all services through the Sliciiff is fully ])rovided for in the Act I herewith ])ul)lish, which authorizes the Attorneys to make services in cases of necessity, and receive so much of the Sheriffs f(!e as he earned; and under the provisions of my ])roi)()Scd I5ill the liliuaut is i'ully protected against over- charges by Lawyer or Sherifl" — they watcli each other and see that no overcharge is made by either. The Process-serving Attorney's ])lea for making services himself is "urr/enf iicccssit)/ ivJicn the Dffciidnvt might he ovt of vi'dcli he/ore e out of rcacli before the Sheriff or his officer could be had to effect the service, then l/ie .Solicitor or Attorney may effect the semice himself, or he may have it effected by any literate pfMson, but shall forthwith after such service tiansmit the Original Process, with Affidavit of Service, to the Sheiiffof the County in which the service was effected, and the Sheriff .shall stamp and make his endorsalion thereon as rc^quired under Sec. 2, and shall be entitled to the same fees he woiihl have been entitled to had the service been effected by himself, his bailiff or officer, less the fees for affidavit of service. i whicl effect shall Coun the d duty Coui two (at Wri Sui praci re/Tfiilating and County Y of making for in the ttorneys to ?o nuicli of rovisions of ,'ainst over- lier and see nsf services ii(/ht he out liavo shown takes tlie heriffs fees ess-serving o in Sec. 5. Summons, 's in legal mniy re it can be ot/ter person ■oiild he Iiad ■vifc himself, tlnvith after vice, to the ShtrifT shall 2, and shall the service nt of service. 17 4th. Any service made as provided under the provisions of Sec. 3, and which was not returned to the Sht-riff of ihe County in which the service was eflfected, shall l)e void and of nf) effect, and any compensation made theiefor shall he held to he so much money received to the use of the Sheriff of the County in which such service was ttfected. 5ih That for- tlie convenience of Solicitors and Atiorneys and to keep down the disl'ursentents 0/ Ihe snits, and sa7>e costs to the litigants, it shall he the duty of every SheritT to appoint a B.iiliff in every town or village in his County distant 15 miles or more from the County-town, and in which are two or more Attorneys practising, whose duty it shaJl be to receive and serve (at all points m-arer to such town or village than to the Cnunty-tf)wn) all Writs of SuniMions, Subpienas or other process or paper issued out of the Sui)e,ioi, County or Surrogate Courts, and delivered to hit by the Attorneys practising in such town or village for service. 6ih. The Bailiff in such town or village who has served the process under the provisions of Sec. 5, shall forthwith transmit the Original Process with Allidavit of Service and .Mileage to the .Sheriff of the County, and the Sheriff shall mnke the necessary endorsation thereon, ami stamp it with his seal of oflice, and shall be entitled to charge his usual and legal fees, including Affidavit and Milciv^e as shown liy the affidavit returned with the Original Process. 7th. No service shall be valid, no appearance or answer can be enforced, and no )iayment or proceeding taken upon any Writ of Summon.o, .Subptena or other prficess or paper issued out of the Superior, County or Surrogate Courts, requiring a iiersonaj or substitutional service, unless and until the original proceeding has the Sheriff's return thereon, nor unless the same has been stamped with the .Sheriff's official seal and recorded in the Process Hook of the Sheriff of the County in which the service should be effected. 8th. No Taxing-master shall tax any bill of costs for serving any Writ of Summons, .Subpoena or any other process or paper issued (nit of the .Sujierior, County or Surrogate Courts, requiring personal or substitutional service, without the Sheriff's return thereon, and tlie official seal of the Sheriff of the County in which the service should be effected being affixed to the original proceeding. 9. All Acts or parts of Acts contrary to the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed. A niiiforiu Ttiriff of fees will not do jnstice to all the Sheriffs. The iirescnL Tariff is .sutticiont for a niiijority of the Slu'riits, but not for the jioorer Sjirievulties ; and if theTariif is raised to give tht,' ])o()rer Sheriffs a lair inetjuie, it will add to the burdens of lititj;ants, and yive too hiyh an income to the larger Shrievalties. Let our ]iresent fees be secured to us, and distributed in accordance with, the following st.'hcme, and idl the Sherilfs will be fairly ptiid without increii.sing the fees. The Scheme. 1. Each Sheriff shall be entitled to retain to his own use in each year all the fees and emoluments received by him in that year up to $2,500. 2. Of the further fees and emoluments received by each Sheriff in each year, in excess of $2,500, up to $3,000, he shall be entitled to retain to his own use 90 per cent, and no more. It < fl 18 3. Of the furtlier fees and etnolunienls ncci year, in excess of $,,000, ami not i-xcfcitiitf; $j,3- letain to his own use 80 pci cent, and no nioie. V each Sheriff in each ; shall he entitled to 4. Of the further fees and emoluments received hy each Sheriff in each year, in excess of $5,500, and not exceeilin^; $4,000, he sliall he entitled to retain to his own use 70 per cent, aiul no more. 5. Of the further fees and emoluments received by each Slieriff in each year, in excess of $4,000, and not exceeding $4,500, he shall be entitled to retain to his own use 60 per cent, and no more. 6. Of the further fees and emitluments I eceived by each SherilT in each year, in excess of $4,500, he shall be eniitled to retain to his own use 50 per cent, and no ninre. 7. On or before the 15th day of January in each year each SlierifT shall transmit to the Provincial Treasurer of Ontario a duplicate of the return required under Chap. 3, 43 Vic, .Sec. 2, and shall also jiay to the Provincial Treasurer of Ontario such proportion of the fees and emoluments received by him during the preceding year, as under this Act he is not entitled to retain to his own u?e. ^ 8. The fees and emoluments paid by the Sheriffs to the Provincial Treasurer of Ontario, under the provisions of Sec. 7 of tliis Act, shall be applied by the Government to supplement the incomes of all .Sheriffs whose net fees and emoluments were uniler $2,000 duriny; the preceding year. ARCH. McKELLAK, Hamilton, fitly 4th, tSSg. Sheriff. SUPPLBMKNT. each Sheriff in each •■ shall be eiitillod lo each SiierilT in ench : siiall he entitled u, each Sheriff in each shall be entitled to each Sheriff in each > his own use 50 per ir each Sheriff shall ilicate of the return ay to tile Provincial himerits received by lot entitled to retain to the Provincial { this Act, shall be r all Sheriffs whose eceding year. KELLAK, Sheriff. i Siii(;t' iniiitint,' llu- iiri'CL'din;^ l>ii|i,'<'s, I liavo 'iiado a dis- coV(!ry which I dt'siru to make }.iil)lic'. Siiici- 1822 till 1(S74, a ]>t'rii)d of ")2 yt-urs, nil Wrils, SiiIiiki'ihih, and nthcr I'rot;es8 i(,'(iMiriiiL>' a iier^oiial or siibstitiitional serviec, wtis servt'd by a Sheritf or hi.H OllictT. In 1(S74 ihc Oiitiirio (lovcnmient which was coiiiposud of Hon. (). MoWAT, AtU»nH y (u'lieial. " Adam Cuodks, rrovK-Tivasnier. T. I'.. I'AKDKi:, Coin. Ciowii Lands. (J. V. FuAWKU, Com. riihlic Works. Aiujui). McKki.lai;, I'lovl.-Secrotary. II II Kour Lawyors and one layman passed the Act. o7 Vic, entitled "An Aet to make jtrnvision for the dne iidministra- tion of .Tnslice. Sections^^and^^ relate to Sheriffs, vSeetion f^ reads as follows, viz : — " Ui»on the delivery of a Writ of Stimmons or a Writ of Ejectment at tlu; otiice of any Sheriff to be served by him, he, his Deputy, or Clerk, shall endorse thereon the time it was delivensd, and in case the Writ is \U)t fully tintl com- pletely served within ten days after such delivery, the ]»laintiff, his attorney, or agent, shall be entitled to receive back the same, and the Sheriff, Deitnty-Shcriff, or Clerk, shall endorse thereon the time of the dtiliveiy ; and the costs of mileai2;e and service of the Writ (by any literate person tifterwards) shall, in case the person to be served was at any time during such ten days within such County, l)e allowed in taxation of costs as if the service had been niado by the Sheritl' or his officer." Sec. $^ reads as follows, viz. ; "If the Sheriff being apjtlied to, neglects or refuses to return the writ, after the ex})iration of ten days, the Plaintiff nuiy issue a duplicate or concurrent writ on the praecijje already filed, or may procure another copy of the bill of information, and the costs of the first writ or other writ or cr)[)y not returned, may be charged against and recovi^-ed from the Sheriff, by the Plaintiff or his Attorney. 1 wish to draw s})ecial attention t(.> the wording of Section 72. There is nothing in it requiring the delivery of a writ or any otlier paper at the Sheriff's oflice, and the working of the Act pin.^ves that was the intention. In Sec. 7o the Sheriff is subjectinl to a penalty if he refuses n 1 ' I r,» 1 1 ^ t ' " ' nI T 1 «• ^ 1)1' n(';,'l('('tM to rutiii'M tlu? writ wlu'ii asked tu do so, iiftcr lie lm8 Iiatl it tell days. I iiiit not awan* tliat any SlnM'ii1' has been suhjci'tcd to this |ic'iialty, and for the very «j[ood n.-ason that he iiccivt'd very few wi'its to si'ivo, and the f» w that lie iHtl reo»Mve were served and retnrned lonj,' before the ten days cxpireil. Althoni^h the Act.'!? Vic, ('hap. 7, was passt;d in 1 H74, when i was a menihei of the iJovernintMit, I confess I was not aware of it.s provision when it passed ; and for the reasttn that laymen take no part orintere.st in Legislation rtdatinjj; to the Adniinistialion of -lust ice, as this Bill is entitled. 1 retired froiu the (lovrrnnient 1st Anj^nist, 187'>, and in 1.S77 1 r( ceived a retnrn showinj^' tlu' workin;^ in KS7() of the Act pas.sed in 1874, the third year it was in force. In 1870, 'J(),.S8t) r>ills and Writs were issned, for which the lawyers were jtaid. The serving' should have been done by the Sherill's, but of the 20,:!8() i'.il'ls and Writs the lawyers .served •),;U4, beinj,' only 77(1 less than lialf. The loss tu the Sherill's from the serving of 9,314 iiillsand Wiits by lawyers was as follows : — Lawyers served n,;"!! S. C. Writs at 82.70, S 9,479.70 1,291 Hills in Chancery at 82.70... 3,485.70 " 4,512 Count,y Court Writs at SI. 55 G,993.G0 9,314 Amt.t. ken from Sheriffs, 819,059 00 The lawyei's charge the persons served the following rates for serving the same 9,314 Bills and Writs, viz., rates shown on ])age 6 : — Serving 3,511 Superior Court Writs at S3. 67 $12,885.37 1,291 Bills in Chancery at 83. G7 4,737.97 4,512 County Court Writs at 82.60 12,001.92 (I 9,314 20,625.26 Add amount taken from Sheriff.. ..19, 959. 00 Total taken by lawyers from Sherifis and persons served, for serving 9,314 writs 849,584.26 When 1 laid such astounding figures before the public, was it not reasonable to look to the Government to make a searching inquiry into the truth or falsiiiiess of my statements, and if found false to ])uni.sh me, or if found correct to repeal the law. They did neither, and now 1 challenge them to an investigation, for I hold receipted accounts to prove the truth of my statements. The figures in the table on page 6 will prove the correctness of the amounts that T allege were taken from the Sheriffs and the persons served. It, iil'tcr ho ^Iii'iiir lijiH )ik1 reason u! ft w that before the (1 in 1874, "t'ss I was the reason relatinjr to ^ entith!il. 1(1 in 1S77 of the Aet In 187G, ivyer.s were ici'ill's, ])ut .'^14, hcinj^ ■i fi'oni the oUoWH ; — i 9,479.70 3,485.70 6,993.60 19,059 00 follovvinjx viz., rate.s 112,885.37 4,737.97 12,001.92 29,025.26 19,959.00 49,584.26 le puljlic, make a ;atements, ' to repeal lein to an irove the m page 6 lege were % ^ In 1881 till' (lovernnuMit was eoniposed of ihc following ))er)4onH : — Hon. (). MiiWAr, .Attorney (lenenil. " T. li. Tauokk, Com. Cn.wn Lunds. " C. Y. Khasku, (J(»ni. I'uhlic Works. '• A. 8. HaHDY, I'roV. See'y (he HUC(!»'e(l.'(l A. MeKelliir.) " {'. S. W.M»i>, I'rov. Treas. " lloii. .\. (Jrook.s.) This (lovernment had fonr lawyers anil one layman, .same as the Governmeiil of 1S74. 'I'his is the (loveiiiment tiiat jtasscil the .Indicature Aet in 1881, and under which SKXM) of my fees for the serving of wiits and snlijuenas was taken from me and poeketed l»v the lawyers in that year. l"'or tlu! working of this Aet see jtages 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the I'aniphlet. Untler tin Aet ol' 1874 nearly one-half (tf the Sheriffs' fees for serving wi'its \.as taken hy the lawyers; the lawyers also took nearly the wholes of the fees for serving Sulipieiias, which at a molei'.ite estimate would amnimt to SlO.OOO. Oil pages 9 an 1 10 I gave a return, sh »wing how the fees and the services were divi^lel between the lawyers and sherilfs ; in 1888 exclusive of the sheriff of Toronto, 37 other sherifl's received for scsrviiig writs and subpienas !?27,828.8(), the .^27,828 80 is Just 8795.40 less than ont.-tliird their fees taken from the sheriffs. In 1882 Hon. A. S. Hardy passed the Act, 45th Vic, Chap. 11, under whicb the Government can use the jieople's money to recoup the sheriffs in part for the fees taken from them and given to hiinscdf and other lawyers ; only a few of tlu! payments are given on i»ag(^ 15, 1 invite the j)ublic to examine my proposed Hills for serving writs and subpoenas on ')ages 16, 17 and 18. I am confident they will acquit me of being prompted by mean or sordid motives. What I am aiming at is first to protect the persons served from the fees wrongfully collected from them ; second to secure the fees that legally belong to the sheriffs, and then share these fees with sheriffs in smaller and poorer counties. There are 41 sheriffs in Ontario, three are in Algoma, Thunder Bay, and another further West ; these sheriffs have very few papers to serve, and the ditliculty is to find a Bailiff to serve them. The return on pages 9 and 10 is from 38 sheriffs in old Ontario. 1 assume it will be granted that 41 sheriffs are required to discharge the duties pertaining to their duties. Ts it so with the lawyers? There ore over 1000 lawyers practicing in Ontario, but for my purpose 1 shall take the City of Hamilton and County of Wentworth as an illustra- tion. From the best information 1 can obtain there are 80,000 of a population in these municipalities. The average number in a family is five, therefore 16,000 would be adults 1 ll or heads of families. I now assume that 8,00() or one-half of the population are enga<4ed in law. There arc 7") lawyers praclieinj> in the County and City, whieh <;ives a lawyer to every 107 of the 8,000. Does any sane man really believe that so many lawyers are necessary to transact the business of the country. The hii>li fees is the cause of the riish into the legal profession, and has had the same elfect on the profession that the Xational I'oliey has had on manufnetures — the business is overdone. The first great rise in th'^ fees was given by the Mowat Uovernmiuit in 1874, and a further increase of fees was given by the same goverinnent in 1881, and in 18^4 the Judges made a fui'ther increase, of wliich the following is a fair sample. The following is the old and new tariffs of fees, made for the lawyers for issuing writs of execution in the H. C. J. and C. C. 01,1» NKW TARll'l''. TAklKK. In H. C. J., Goods or Lands, original, each !?."».()() .SO. 00 renewal, " .S.7o 4.00 In C. C, " " original, each ;-5.0() 4.00 " " " renewal, " 2.25 2.50 In H. C. J. the new tariff, the fee on the renewal is added to the fee on tlie original, thus $6.00 on original and $4.00 renewal, SIO.OO, and if the debt on goods writ, $4.00, is not paid, it is made on sahi of lands, the same is done in the C. C. The public will readily see why there is such a scramble among young men to beeonu^ members of the legal lU'oftssion. 1st they have their own legal fees which are good, 2nd they have the sheriffs fees, and as I have shown it, a larger fee Ithau the sheriffs fee from the person served. As an instance of the liostility of some menil)ers of the legal ])rofession to mvself, T give the following: A gentle- miin from Toronto, who is a lawyer, told one of our county otlicials that the profession were unitetl in kee})ing all the bu.siness they could away from my courts, and no doubt tliey succeeded to a certain extent. ,\s an illustration, my last chancery court lasted only one day. 1 care not, lor 1 know I am contending for j)rotection autl justice for slierili's and litigants, and close by leaving m\self and my cause in the hand.s of my old trusty friends the electors of Ontario, who will in this, as in former cases, render a just and righteous verdict. AliCH. .AIcKKLLAU. HamiUon, Dec. I6(h, 1889. or oiie-luilf ". 7") lawyers ii lawyer to ally believe :he business le visli into ri'ect on the lanuf'jictures I' in tliM fees nd a further i3ut in 1881, of which the old and new ly writs of NEW TAklKF. )() ::