IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. 1.0 :f" I.I 1.25 28 2.5 2.2 lis 1 2.0 1.4 1= 1.6 V] (^ / ''^A >v 'W '/ w Photographic Sdences Corporation 33 WES1 MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical INAicroreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques Th« to 1 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 sigr^ificantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. B Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur D D Q Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ ere de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur D Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, those have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. n □ □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicolordes, tachet^es ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6e$ Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualitd indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tisisues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de fagon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. Tht pos of 1 filn Ori be{ the sioi oth firs sioi or i Tht sha TIM wh Ma diff ent beg rigf req me' This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de r^rii>o*ion jndiqui ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X J 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire filnid fut reproduit grice d la g6nArosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada 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. Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la netteti de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. 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. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON- TINUED "). or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimie sont filmds en commen9ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmis en commen^ant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole -^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole 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 cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent 6ue fiimds 6 des taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop qrand pour dtre reproduit en un seul ciichd, il est film6 6 partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche 6 droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 r *i j jii >i > i i ii ^ i ti aiiiJ M i i MjU > iUi <> i»iU * H i AMlJ > iJ > -tJAitii»Mi # -M I SHERIFFS' PETITION ■I : 4 4 < THE . ► '<-.p' WITH Ti-! ^..W. STATEMENTS OF GRIEVANCES Xi ■\r . AMD PROOFS; , ,*SP„ ;a'. DRAFT OF AN ACT/ TO RBDRKSS THESE GRIEVANCES, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXECUTION OF ALL PAPERS IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AS CHEAPLY AS POSSIBLE. ■ jf-: '■St-'"-. '• ■ >:-■"■' ■' I V ■ ' *• *■.,-' ■,*•■ •• > •f i*' ;^;^ .> .»^._.-.x »»», .♦,v 9«r0nt«[ 4C >..• PllINTED BY HUNTER, ROSE AND COMPANY. 1880. iiiife;--«afcSMr-Tx^M.''i '■T w. >: •^?v:^V' *»•* -■'< - 1: - V -./r. ' »^v''-, ' • .••■» -> .'. ■ K ■•4 « ^*v' r\i '.-C . ;'. . V. \^ /jt/^lfC ^54i^ /i^XTftU-.'^yWi't^^'i'^^ THE SHERIFFS' PETITION / WITH STATEMENTS OF GRIEVANCES AND PROOFS; ALSO « DRAFT OF AN ACT, TO REDRESS THESE GRIEVivNCES, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXECUTION OF ALL PAPERS IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AS CHEAPLY AS POSSIBLE. 3I^ov0ttto: PRINTED BY HUNTER, ROSE AND COMPANY. * 1880. . k: . ^j 7^ . i % ^1 \ C/3) 7^0:2^ V PREFACE. Shortly after ray appointment to the Shrievalty of this County, on the Ist August, 1875, I discovered that a large number of papers, which the law intended should be served by the Sheriffs, and from which they were to derive a large portion of their incomes, were being served by lawyers' clerks, division court bailiffs, and others. With a view of ascertaining the extent to which this practice was car- ried, I placed a Motion in the hands of my friend Mr. Sinclair, M,P,P. for North Bruce, asking for a return of all Writs of Summons and Bills in Chancery, issued in Ontario, in the preceding year, and also the number of such papers as were executed by the Sheriffs during the same period, in order to discover the proportion served by the Lawyers. Mr. Sinclair brought forward his motion on the evening of January 10th, 1877, thinking that so reasonable a request would be readily granted ; the motion, how- ever, was hariliy read, when the floor of Parliament bristled with Profes- sional men on their feet, each more vehement in his opposition than his neighbour ; they said the motion " was not called /or, ami would entail un- necessary expense," " that if the Lawijers served papers, tliey did so to save costs to iJu. litigant, they did not, and could iiot collect for tlie service ; Vie thing was done at the expense of the profession itself, in fact the execution of such papers was purely a hibotir of love ? " The motion was dropped, and immediately Mr. Sinclair and myself were assailed through the columns of the press, and otherwise charged with hav- ing made an attempt to increase the Sheriffs' fees, and thereby add to the burdens of the people. I believe that this cry was used against Mr. Sin- clair during the election, as a means of injuring him with his constituents. All this opposition, however, strengthened my conviction that Process- serving, by others than the Sheriffs, was carried on to a much larger extent than was generally supposed, and was to those engaged in it a money-mak- ing business, and I determined not to relax my efforts, until I had ascer- tained the full extent of the evil. Before the close of the year, I was in possession of a full and complete official return, such as I wanted, disclosing the startling fact, that the papers served by the Lawyers deprived the Sheriffs of upwards of $20,600 per an- num of their legal fees, being an avearge of $554 taken from each of the thirty-seven Sheriffs in Ontario ; but if no charge was made for these ser- . vices, as we are assured by more than one member during the debate, on Mr. Sinclair's motion, the $20,500 which was lost to the Sheriffs, was saved to the litigants, and thus the Public were benefited. I was rather sceptical as to the truth of the assertion, that these services were made for the purely benevolent object of saving costs to the litigant, and not for the benefit of the Attorney — and determined, if possible, to as- certain the true state of the case. of two years (during which time I have made H I T PREFACE. 4 ^ ^6'liJ most diligent enquiry), in a position to prove beyond a doubt, that, as a rule, no such free services are made, but on the coiitrar}', the very men that told us that the Lawyers made the services for nothing, or at the expense of the profession itself, not only collect the Sheritfn' fees but sums double to what the SheriiTs would be entitled to, in addition to their own. That Writs and other papers, wliich the Law meant should be served by the Sherififs or their officers, are in numerous cases given to the Division Court Bailiffs, by the Lawyers, is proved beyond dispute by some two hun- dred 1 itters which I have published in pamphlet form, from Division Court Clerks and Bailiffs. Having ample proof of the truth of the statements I make, I am pre- pared to defend them before any tribunal that may be named to investigate them. I have no quarrel with, or feeling of hostility towards the members of the legal profession, my intercourse with them has, with very few exceptions, been of the most friendly and satisfactory nature, and I would not be un- derstood as in any way desiring to interfere with the duties, fees or emolu- ments which the Law assigns to them, and that is all we ask them to do with reference to the duties, fees and emoluments of the Sheriff's Office. At present a large sum of the fees and emoluments which the Law intended for the Sheriff are pocketed by others, who, under pretext of saving costs to the litigant, serve papers that the Law intended should be served by the Sheriff ; while their real object is to pocket the Sheriff's fees, and as much more taken wrongfully from the defendant, as conclusively proven by the taxed bills of costs herewith published. I, for one, have determined not to sit in silence whil« tuch wrongs are being practised on myself, and the pub- lic, without raising my voice against them and using all lawful means to put an end to such an evil. Nor shall I permit myself, my Bailiff or Officers, to be utilized as instruments of wrong-doing and oppression, in the way of collecting large sums in the shape of fees, from the defendant, for the At- torney, for which there is no law or authority, and this we are frequently asked to do as shown by the list of eighteen Writs of Execution published ^ ^y , t^ in t he following page s, on which I am asked to c ollect ^i^.if'BTbre than tfie ^//*^ legal lee, being an^'average over-charge of 9i^ on each Writ, being nearly two and a half sheriff's fees in each case, and such illegal charges are, as a rule, made by those good men who serve Writs and other papers themselves, and tell the public they make no charge and do it to save costs to the poor and distressed defendant. I am prepared faith- fully, honestly and prom^ tly to perform, execute and enforce all the duties which the Law imposes upon me, disagreeable and painful to my feelings as some of them are. But to go beyond the Law and permit myself and my officers, with the legal machinery at our command, to be utilized as in- struments of wrong-doing and oppression is what I shall resist to the death — and feel assured that all honest men both lay and professional will sus- tain me in this resolution. I would further invite the public to a careful perusal of the Bill which I have prepared, and herewith publish — the object of which is : 1st. —To surrender over ten per cent, of the Sheriff's fees to the public to be given to the Municipalities or other such purpose as the Govern- ment in their judgment may deem best in the public interest. PREFACE. 2nd. — To provide that all papers in legal proceedings sliall be served by the Sheriff, or by his authority. 3rd. — To appoint BailiflFs in outlying Towns and Villages, for the con- venience of Barristers or Attorneys there practising — thus saving time and expense in the serving of papers. 4th. — ^To provide that the Lawyers themselves may serve all papers if they 8 ne fit. While I have done all I could in framing the Bill, to secure to the Sheriff his fees, and the proposed percentage to the public, I have provided for cheapness and dispatch in the execution of all papers in legal proceedings, and now submit it to the public for their judgment. In conclusion, I beg to say that I have thus frankly and openly stated the grievances of which we complain, as well as the measures I suggest for their removal, those who know me best know I never fought under cover. I shall not do so now. I am advocating a just and righteous measure, I have an enlightened public opinion and a strong and honest government to appeal to, and I shall not appeal in vain : to these tribunals I submit our case, as one in which they, as well as the Sheriffs, are interested — hop- ing it will meet with full and free discussion, investigation and redress. Sheriffs Office, Hamilton, Uth October 1879. •1 ARCH. McKELLAR, Sheriff Co. Wentworth. 6 SHERIFFS PETITION. To the Honourable tfie Legislative Aaaembly oftJie Province of Ontario ; THE PETITION of the undersigned Sheriffs of the said Province, Humbly Sheweth :— Ist. — That owing to the various changes made in the Law within the last few years, — more particularly the Sale of Land for Taxes, and the enact- ment of the Bankrupt Law, — many of the duties formerly discharged by Sheriifs have been transferred to others ; thereby greatly reducing the emol- uments of the Sheriffs' offices. 2nd. — That in view of these facts, the Judges of the Superior Courts generously increased the Tariff of Fees, in order, in some measure, to make good the heavy (in some cases almost ruinous) reductions made in your Petitioners' incomes. 3rd. — That one of the principal itema on which the tariff was increased, and from which your Petitioners expected considerable emolument, was the serving of all papers in legal proceedings in the Superior and County Courts, which the Law never intended should be served by others, unless the SheriflF failed to do so within the time prescribed by the Law : Vide Revised Statutes of Ontario, Chap. 50 ; Sees. 23 and 24. 4th. — That the leading Professional men at the Bar, in all parts of the Province, interpret the Law in accordance with the views expressed by your Petitioners, and scrupulously abstain from serving any papers which the Law provide? should be served by the Sheriff, and in public and private express their disapproval of Process-serving by members of the Bar, as being unjust to the Sheriffs, and beneath the dignity which should charac- terize members of the legal profession. 5th. — That another class of the members of the Bar of which your Peti- tioners have great reason to complain, and whose practices they desire to bring under the notice of your Honourable House, constantly violate both the spirit and letter of the law, seldom or never giving papers for service to the Sheriff, employing their own clerks or others ♦o perform the duty, and allege that such services are only made in cases of great urgency, when the Sheriffs officer could not be had in time ; that no charge can be made or fees collected, and is done therefore in the interest of the unfortunate litigant. 6th. — Y our Petitioners, in answer to the plea of " urgent necessity " would call the attention of your Honourable House to the fact that, by a return obtained in 1877, the number of Writs and Bills of Complaint issued in Ontario, in the preceding year, was Twenty thousand three hundred and eighty three ; of this number, Nine thousand three hundred and seven- teen wore served by others than the Sheriffs, or within eight hundred and seventy-four of being one-half of the total number issued : a number too large to be defended on the plea of "urgent necessity." 7th. — That in answer to the plea that when services are made by other SHERIFFS PETITION. than the Sheriflf or SherifTs officer, no charge is made or fee collected, would state that they are in a position to prove that charges are made and fees collected for such services, and frequently, if not always, much more than would have been paid the ShoriflT. 8th. — Your Petitioners beg to state further in reply to the assertion, that for services made by others than a Sheriff, or a Sheriffs officer, no fees can be collected, inasmuch as the Taxing officer will not allow for such ser- vices ; that much more than half the suits in which legal proceedings are commenced, and in which Writs and other papers are served, never go to judgment, but are settled in the Attorney's office ; where a Bill of Costs is prepared and presented to the Defendant, who, as a rule, acts without an Attorney, is himself ignorant of the legal tariff of fees, and thankful to get out of the clutches of the law on any terms, and at any cost, pays the Bill as presented, which the eye of the Taxing officer never sees ; and which, as a rule, includes a sum in addition to the Attorney's own legal expenses, amounting to more than double the fees to which the Sheriff would have been entitled had he make the service himself. 9th. — Your Petitioners further beg to call the attention of your Honour- able House to the fact that the services made by Attorneys through their own clerks or others than the Sheriff or his officer, are chiefly made in Towns or Cities where comparative little time is lost, or labour bestowed, while Writs and other papers to be served on parties at a distance, and whose residences are frequently unknown are given to the Sheriff, whose Bailiff not unfrequently, after long journeys and unremitting efforts, fails to find the Defendant ; thus often putting the Sheriff to great expense, for which he receives no remuneration. 10th. — Your Petitioners would further state that it is no uncommon thing to be told verbally and in writing, by many of such members of the profession as are engaged in Process-serving, and who are pressed, it may be, for a long overduo account, or some other trifling or imaginary griev- ance, that in future they will have all papers served by others than the Sheriff. Thus reminding your Petitioners of their dependence upon them, as they can at their pleasure increase or diminish your Petitioners' incomes. 11th. — Your Petitioners submit they should not be placed in this humil- iating position, that the law should clearly define and secure to them their rights and duties on the one hand, and rigidly provide for the enforcement as well as the prompt and faithful performance of them on the other. 12th. — Your Petitioners would further beg to call the attention of your Honourable House to the fact, that the Clerks and Bailiffs of the Division Court who are paid by fees, are protected by Law, no service from that Court being re'^ognized as legal, unless made by its own officers, while the Sheriffs, also paid by fees, and compelled to keep and pay Bailiffs, are not 80 protected. Writs and other papers which should be served by a SherifTs officer being commonly served by Division Court Bailiffs or others employed by the Attorney for that purpose, as fully proved by documentary evidence in the possession of your Petitioners. 13th. — In view tf all these facts, your Petitioners respectfully submit that the practice of Process-serving by Attorneys or others employed by them, is an act of great injustice to the honest practitioner, who pays for y| II m 8 sheriffs' petition. \ his services through a Sheriffs officer, as well as to jour Petitioners, whose fees are wrongfully pocke. ed by others without benefit to the public 14th. — In conclusion, your petitioners humbly pray, that your Honour- able House may be pleased to appoint a committee, before whom they may be heard more fully touching the matters they complain of, with a view of enabling your Honourable House to do what may appear just and proper ia the premises. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. John McEwen, Sheriff, County of Essex. James Flintoft, Sheriff, County of Lambton. William Glass, Sheriff, County of Middlesex. Colin Munro, Sheriff, County of Elgin. George Perry, Sheriff, County of Oxford. Thomas D. McConkey, Sheriff, County of Simcoo. George Davidson, Sheriff, County of Waterloo. Hobert Brody, Sheriff, County of Peel. John Hossie, Sheriff, County of Perth. Joseph Maughan, Sheriff, County of Grey. Robert Gibbons, Sheriff, County of Huron. William Sutton, Sheriff, County of Bruce. Peter Gow, Sheriff, County of Wellington. Edmund Deedes, Sheriff, County of Norfolk. Archibald McKellar, Sheriff, County of Wentworth. John Smith, Sheriff, Councy of Brant. Robert Hobson, Sheriff, County of Welland. George Kempt, Sheriff, County of Victoria. James P. Wells, Sheriff, County of Prescott and Russell. Nelson G. Reynolds, Sheriff, County of Ontario. William F. Powell, Sheriff, County of Carleton. John Mercer, Sheriff, County of Kent. Robert H. Davis, Sheriff, County of Haldimand. G. C. McKindsey, Sheriff, County of Halton. R. N. Waddell, Sheriff, County of Northumberland and Durham. James Hall, Sheriff, County of Peterboro. G. Taylor, Sheriff, County of Hastings. 0. T. Pruyn, Sheriff, County of Lennox and Addington. James Gillespie, Sheriff, County of Prince Edward. William Ferguson, Sheriff, County of Renfrew. James Thompson, Sheriff, County of Lanark. i William Patrick, Sheriff, County of Leeds and Grenville.ff D. G. Mclntyre, Sheriff, County of Stormont, Dundas and ' Glengarry. R. Carney, Sheriff, Algoma. V \-\ le r- y )f m'nair vs. ooerino et al. McNAIK vs. GOEPING et al In this cause the facts are, that young McNair, the Plaintiff's son, derved the paper and made the usual affidavit, that he was the Sheriff's officer, while the fact is that the Sheriff was not aware that such a being was in existence ; and in order to have the Bill of Costs taxed, the son of Plaintiff's Attorney made another Affidavit, that he paid the Sheriffs fees, which was untrue, and that he charged for letters which were never written in refer- ence to papers that never were in the Sheriff's office, and in that way col- lected over five dollars for Sheriff's fees. The Bill was taxed without Defendant's Attorney being notified, and the figures on the right hand side of the red line, amounting to $61.63 were struck off. When Defendant's Attorney became aware that the Bill was so taxed in his absence, and without his knowledge, he had it taxed a second time, when a further sum of $60.88, as shown by the figures on the left hand side of the red line, were struck off. We would commend this, as well as the other taxed Bills of Costs hereunto annexed to the prayerful consideration of those who have doubts that, in addition to their own fees, sums much larger than the Sheriff's fees, are collected by such mem- bers of the Profession as are engaged in Process-serving. Here we have a Bill of Costs of $288.08 made up to collect $79.80. The Taxing Master strikes off $122.51 as wrongfully charged, and in the $122.51 is included $13.37 for Sheriff's Fees for papers never served by the Sheriff. No doubt the Attorney would tell the public that he made the service through his own Bailiff to save the Sheriffs fees to the litigant. Why then did he charge the Sheriff's fees and the additional sum of $109.14 wrongfully to the Defendant? This is a fair specimen of the bene- fits derived by the litigants from those who do their own Process-serving. IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH. Samuel McNair, Plaintiff, vs, John W. Goeuing and Elijah S. Whip- ple, Defendants, BILL OF COSTS. 2nd TAXAy TION. IST TAXA- TION. $ 60 No. 9 1 Instructions to sue $ 3 00 1 00 200 1 00 50 9 2 Letters to Defendants and paid 06 1 00 3 Summonses and paid 4 Special indorsement 1 10 5 ]Xotices Fortoard 100 to 60 •7 60 12 16 w 10 BILL OF COSTS. 2N2) TAXA- TION. IST. TAXA- TION. $ 1 00 69 56 60 60 60 1 00 1 00 1 00 50 30 1 00 50 20 50 50 1 00 2 00 1 00 50 50 50 50 2 00 60 1 35 50 2 00 100 No. Brouyht forward. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 3G 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Two copies of Writ Letters to Sheriff liOtters to Sheriff to return Writ Attendinjf to retiirn Letters to Sheriff with fees Paid Sheriff's P'ees Affidavit of payment of mileage Attending search appearance of Whipple Attending search appearance Goering Instructions for pleadings Drawing Declaration Attending Counsel with and for Counsel fee revising Cojetter to Client advising 03 97 Subpoena and paid 1 00 98 Nine Copies 65 99 Letter to Sheriff with Writ ... 15 063 lUU Letter to Sheritt to return same 03 50 101 Attendmg lor return... 55 102 Letter to Sheriff with fees 05 10 04 103 Haid Sherilt's lees !.' 10 04 1 OU 104 Affidavitof UOTUieut .,« y/jy 105 Attorney attending trial 106 Counsel fee at Trial 50 00 107 Paid Crier and Witness 1 95 108 Paid Sheriff 1 Qp 1 .50 109 Paid on Verdict 110 Attending for Record and paid .50 1 50 1 50 111 Postea 112 .Judgment Roll 113 'Judgment 114 Bill of Costs 12 folios • 1 20 115 Copy of same 116 Instructions for Affidavits of Disbursements 117 Affidavitof J .Usbursements 12 folios 118 Attending to serve and paid 119 Copy to serve 120 Attending to serve 121 Notice of Taxation Forward 146 98 $56 98 $129 20 $119 98 vl w 12 m'nair vs. ooerinq et al. I-.' 2nd TAXA- TION. Ibt TAXA- TION. No. S 56 98 4 65 Brouaht forward $129 20 050 1 00 7 00 5 40 $119 9» 46 98 122 Attending to serve Bill 50 123 Attending on Taxation 8 00 124 Witness Fees 25 00 125 Tenn Fees 5 40 126 Costs siirnin&r Judcrment $60 88 $61 63 $143 10 $144 98 Taxed oflF on first Taxation $61 63 Taxed off on Second )> $60 88 Damages . 144 98 $288 08 f $122 51 $166 57 79 80 $246 37 "A." IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH. Samuel McNair, Plaintiff V8. John W. Goering, and Elijah S. Whip- ple, Defendants. , I, Eaid rth. Co. he It ^e ;c. e- le Y- id g r- MNAIR VS. aOERINO ET AL. 11 cept the fip;ure8 on the left hand side of the red line on the h'ft hand mar- gin of said bill of costs, which are not on the bill of costs filed with said Deputy Clerk ; the figures on right hand of the red line in the margin of said Bill being the amounts taken off said Bill on taxation by said Clerk. 6. That the Defendants object to the allowance to said Plaintiff on tax- ation of his said Bill of Costs of the amounts marked on the left hand side of the red line in the margin of said Bill in addition to the amounts taxed off of said Bill by said Deputy Clerk ; and the Defendants object to the allowance of said items on the following grounds : as to if^em number 4, because said action was not the subject of special endorsement the said ac- tion being for damages which were held to be unliquidated. As to item 7, because writ not sent to Sheriff of an outer County, and the charge for the Writ includes the attendance on Sheriff with same. As to item 10, bo- cause there is no evidence of its having been done, and if done, unneces- sary. As to items 13 and 14, because the services were not performed, or if performed, unnecessary, because the Writ of Summons was only served on or about the fifteenth day of March, A.D. 1875, and appearance was entered on the 17th day of March, 1875, by said John Barry for both of said Defendants, and notice of said appearance was served on the Plaintiff's Attorney the same day said appearance was entered. As to item 24, be- cause work was not performed. As to item 28, because it was merely a Joinder of Issue. As to items 29 and 31, because they are included in item 28. As to item 33, because it was not done, or if so, unnecessary. As to item 35, because order was only one folio in length, or if more than that, unnecessary length. As to item 41, not allowable, instructions for order being allowed in item 40. As to items 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 55, nothing to shew that services performed or necessary. As to item 63, unnecessary, and included in 61. As to item 54, because unnecessary and not taxable. As to item 75, because not warranted by length of Brief, and contains su- perfluous matter. As to item 93, because unnecessary there should be a separate attendance, and included in 91. As to items 112, 113 and 126, because they were unnecessary, the Defendants being ready to pay the amount of Plaintiff's damages and costs, and had notified the Plain tiff^a Attorney to that effect. As to items 115, 119, 120, 121 and 122, because the services there charged for were not performed. As to item 125, be- cause eight term fees have been charged, and proceedings were only taken in five terms after declaration filed. As to item 124, because larger itv,~ were paid to some of said witnesses than the tariff allows ; and the wit- nesses residing in Hamilton attended an unnecessarily length of time. As to items 99, 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104, because the services there charged for were not performed, and them charged as paid were not paid. The services of said subpoena not having been made or recognised by the said Sheriff, or by any one with his authority, that the paper hereunto annexed ** B " is a copy of said subpoena, and the affidavit thereto attached marked " C " is a true copy of the affidavit annexed to and filed with said subpoena : that the said Samuel McNair, the younger, who makes said affidavit, is a son of said Plaintiff, and is not an officer of said Sheriff; that I am in- formed and believe that the said subpoena was not received in the SheriflTs office at all, for the purpose of having copies thereof served on the persons therein named, that the endorsement on said subpoena, " rec'd January 3rd, B I " I 1 1 18 m'nair vs. goerino et al. Il(- 1877 — fees, $10.04 " — and the return endorsed thereon : — " The service of " this subpoena appears by the affidavit hereunto annexed. The answer of "Archibald McKellar, Sheriff, A. D. McPherson, fees, $10.04," and the affi- davit of service thereunto annexed was, as I verily believe, made through the fraudulent connivance and contrivance of the Plaintiffs Attorney, the Plaintifl's son, the said Samuel McNair, the younger, an SUTOR VS. SERVOS. 19 attach his name to the letter is no other than Mr. CharUe Durand, of Toronto (who in addition to the dischar In the County Court. Servos, Defendant, j I, William Servos make oath and say ; that I was the Defendant in this cause. That having expressed dissatisfaction at the amount of the costs, both Lauder and Proctor assured me that»had the service been made by the Sheriff instead of by themselves, the costs would have been much larger. Wm. Servos. Sworn before me, at Hamilton, in the County of Wentworth, this 2nd day of February, 1878. E. G. Dampier, A Commissioner in B. E., Itc, County of Wentworth. During the debate on Mr. Sinclair's motion, Mr. Deacon, thenM.P.P. for Eenfrew, rose and delivered himself in the following eloquent strains : '* He would have thought that the Attorney General would have in- *' formed the Hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Sinclair), and through *' him that section of the Country, that though the Sheriffs were not suf- " ficiently paid, that if the Sheriffs were in a position to complain, they "had neither this House, nor the Judges of the Superior Courts (who " made the rules under which they receive their fees), to blame for it. The ** Insolvent Act (over which the Dominion has exclusive control) has done " a great deal to deprive the Sheriffs of a large amount of their income ; so " much so, as almost to render their offices unremunerative at one time ; " but he (Mr. Deacon) contended that a most liberal tariff had been framed " by the Judges on behalf of the Sheriffs. " The Attorney General ought also to have informed the member for " North Bruce, that if the papers were served by the profession, it was at " the expense of the Profession ioself," Vide Mail, January 11th, 77. Noble sentiment irom the good Deacon. The Sheriffs iiave always been fairly and most generously dealt with by the Judges of the Superior Courts, and the tariff last made for them, and to which Mr. Deacon refers, is one with which the Sheriffs are perfectly satisfied ; but they fail to see any special advantage in the tariff (if as in Mr. Deacon's own case, which v/e publish below) the Lawyers take the fees. If it's all the same to them, the Sheriffs would exchange, give the Lawyers the Tariff, and the Sheriffs take the fees. We now invite the public to compare Mr. Deacon's practices, with his public utterances — he issued and served the writ on the following case : — BISHOP VS. DOUGLAS. 23 BISHOP VS. DOUGLAS ] COUNTY COURT. ( I' To amount of Costa in the case as per ■! $7.00. j Mr. Deacon's Keceipt. ( Pembroke, 7th October, 1879. Received from Mr. Joseph Douglas the sum of Seven Dollars costs, in the County Court of Bishop va. Douglas to date, but without any agree- ment to stay proceedings in suit. Thomas Deacon, (w. H. D.) I arrived at the Metropolitan Hotel in Pembroke, at 10 P. M. on the evening of 7th October, 1879, registered my name, and was immediately served by a clerk named Deacon, from Mr. Deacon's Law Office. I at once paid his costs amounting to seven dollars, for which he gave the foregoing receipt. There were no letters, notices, or any other paper than the Writ of Summons served upon me. Joseph Douglas. COUNTY COURT, COUNTY OP PEMBROKE. bishop ^ The service having been made by the Attorney himself, vs. V and the costs having been paid forthwith by the Defendant, DOUGLAS 3 Douglas, The Attorney would be entitled to the following sums and no more : Instructions to sue $2 00 Writ, and paid for l 50 Copy of Writ 50 Special Endorsement.. 75 $4 75 Amount Charged 7 00 Taxed off. $2 25 I hereby certify that I have taxed this Bill of Costs at Four Dollars and seventy-five cents. John McDougall, C. C. C. County Waterloo, If the Summons had been served by the Sheriff, he would have been entitled to $1.80, and no more. Per M. McDougall, C. C. C. Here we have Mr. Deacon taking more than a sum equal to the Sheriff^s fee, in addition to his own legal fees. No doubt he will, in self defence, quote his ever memorable speech of the 10th Jan., 1877, in which he tells the House, and the Country, that " a most liberal Tariff Jiad been framed by the Judges on behalf of the Sheriffs," and say let them keep the tariff, and let jne keep the fees ; or he may undertake to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, the Country, and the Member for 1/ 24 SMITH VS. MERCER. ' I nil i .;• Norfh Bruce, that the declaration in the speech referred to, in which he says : " that if papers are served by the Profession, it is at the expense of the Profession itself" is absolutely true ; he will tell the Attorney General that, although it would appear to the uninitiated, by a reference to the receipt, and the taxing master's taxed Bill of Costs, that the two Dollars and twenty-five cents were taken wrongfully from the pockets of Defendant Douglas, yet in fact that it was not so ** that it was at the expense of the Pro- fession itself" ! ! I Truly thou art a Deacon fearfully and wonderfully made. COUNTY COURT, COUNTY OF BRANT. Smith, Plaintiff. vs. Mercer, Defendant. Instructions Letter Summons and paid Copy, 50c. Special Endorsement, 75c Two Common Notices Copy Endorsement Attending Service of Writ, &c Bill 50c. Copy, 25c Affidavit of Service and paid Fee in Settlement, &c Deduct amount taxed off Attorney's Cash paid by Attorney. Own Fees. $ cts. $ cts. 2 00 25 2 00 50 1 25 50 50 50 75 95 20 1 00 $9 70 70 70 $10 40 5 15 $5 25 Amount Taxed Off. $ cts. 25 1 00 .50 50 50 25 1 15 1 00 $5 15 Received Payment, January 29tb, 1878. Hardy, Wilkes «fe Jones. I certify that I have taxed this Bill of Costs at $5.25. S. H. Ghent, February 2nd, 1878. C. C. C. County of Wentworth. If summons had been served by the Sheriff he would have been entitled to $1.80, and no more. S. H. Ghent, C. C. C, County of Wentworth. - "'■'. > County Court. Mercer, j . I, William K. Mercer make oath and say : That 1 was the Defendant in V ■ iuse, that Mr. Wilkes assured me he had the Writ served from his otiice, by doing which he had saved me the SheriflTs fees. W. K. Mercer. Sworn before me at Hamilton, in the County of Wentworth, this 2nd day of February, 1878. R. G. Dampier, A. Com. in B. R. &c., County of Wentworth. THOMPSON VS. SIMPSON. 25 During the debate Mr. Meredith moved the Motion be amended, by add- ing the following words thereto, viz : " also the cases, if any, in which fees for services of process have been taxed, where service has not been affected by the Sheriff, and also the fees paid to the Sheriff for services of process in each case." We must refer Mr. Meredith to the case of McNair versus Goering & Whipple, printed herewith, as a complete illustration of the modus operandi, by which Bills of Costs are taxed, and Sheriff's fees collected where service of Process was not effected by the Sheriff or his officer. We submit that Legislation on this subject is more urgent than it was on the matter of Members' Indemnity, which occupied so much time and attention during the last Session of Parliament. Mr. Meredith should have informed the House, and the country, that at least seventy-five per cent, of the actions commenced, and in which Writs, &c., are served, never go to Judgment, but are settled in the Attorney's office, where the Bill of Costs is made out and paid, without ever being sub- jected to the scrutinizing eye of the taxing-master ; it is in this way, that such members of the Bar as are engaged in Process-serving reap a rich har- vest in the shape of fees, at the exj)ense of the Defendant and Sheriff, as beautifully exemplified in the following Bill of Costs from Mr. Meredith's own office ; in which he collects Jive dollars and tivcnty-Jive cents, over and above his own legal fees, from the Defendant, being within fifteen cents of three sheriffs' fees, and he also, as he states in his letter, laid his client under a small contribution. Read the following : IN THE COUNTY COURT, COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX. Thomson, ) vs. V BILL OF COSTS. Simpson. J Instructions $2 00 28 Letter 25 03 Writ, and appearance for 1 00 50 Copy 50 25 Special Endorsement 1 00 50 Copy 50 25 Notices 25 50 Attending to serve 50 1 00 Service of Writ 1 00 94 Affidavit of service 94 53 Letters to Client 50 03 100 Settlement Bills 1 00 $5 25 $9 44 §0 56 56 $10 09 Taxed off 5 25 $4 75 Rec'd payment, 4th Dec. 1878. Meredith & Meredith, I, John McDougall, Clerk of the County Court, County of Waterloo, do hereby certify that I have taxed, and allowed in the above Bill of Costs, the sum of five dollars and eighty one cents. John McDougall, County Court Clerk's Chambers, Clerk C. C. Co. Waterloo. Berlin, Aug 14th, 1879. 'M 26 WILLIAMS VS. WOOD. London, Ont., December 19th, 1879, John R. Thomson, Esq , Windsor. Dear Sir, — Yourself vs. Simpson. — We enclose yon herewith $3 in fuU of amount due you after deducting $1, our charges against you. Yours truly, Meredith & Meredith. • !:1 IN THE COUNTY COURT OP THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAO. (Jhakleh E, Williams, riaintiff, vs. John Wood, Defendant. Instructions to sue ?2 00 Writ Fee on 1 00 15 Paid for 65 Coi>y 50 Special Endorsement and Copy 75 50 Notices Endorsed 50 25 Attending' to serve 25 95 Affidavit of Service 95 25 Bill of Costs, and attending Settlement 1 00 Disbursed 65 $7 GO Taxed off 2 10 $5 50 Received payment, December 11th, 1878. Bawden & Machar. Examined and Taxed this 2nd day of September, 1879. David McLaws, C. a. G. Elgin. Statement of Writ of Summons and Bills of Complaint issued in Ontario in the year 187G. T^ .,,„„„ „,.^,,„ Writs in Supc- Writs in In- Total of Bills ot JNAMK OF coiMT. rior Courts. furior Court. Writs. Chancery. 1 Algoma 3 35 38 1 2 Brant 99 237 336 56 3 Bruce 141 246 :^7 33 4 Carleton 474 779 1253 157 5 Elgin 92 149 241 1 6 Essex 120 138 264 47 7 Frontenac 19G 3.35 501 59 8 Grey 118 140 268 20 9 Haldimand 34 47 81 2 10 Halton 61 117 178 13 11 Hastings 336 497 833 154 12 Huron 152 178 330 64 13 Kent 139 214 352 32 14 Lambton 87 115 202 23 15 Lanark 130 201 331 48 16 Leeds and Granville 161 165 326 29 17 Lennox and Addington 116 116 233 174 18 Lincoln 127 'SM 461 71 19 Middlesex 438 822 1260 114 20 Norfolk 89 296 385 49 BILLS IN CHANCERY AND WRITS OF SUMMONS ISSUED. 27 Statement of Writs of Summons and Bills of Complaint issued, &c.—Con. Namb of County. ^rits in Supc- WriU in In- ToUl o( Bills of rior CdiirU. ferior Court. Writs. Chancery. 21 Northumberland and Durham 25»1) 340 (J.'O 58 22 Ontario 105 318 483 61 2.3 Oxford 129 1!I3 322 76 24 Peel 40 81 121 24 25 Perth IHt l.-.O 278 74 26 Peterborough 86 138 224 64 27 Preaoott and Russell 28 nS 86 18 28 Prince Edward 51 iM) 140 4 29 J{enfrew 82 170 252 1 30 Sinicoe 2(i0 Mri 60.5 59 31 Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry... 176 383 .f>.59 68 32 Victoria HO 183 203 61 33 Waterloo 62 125 183 80 34 Welland 45 111 156 — 35 Wellhigton 270 .394 664 74 .36 Wentwoi-th 404 779 1183 163 37 York 1141 2216 2357 618 6.5.56 11245 17801 2579 Statement of No. of Bills in Chancery and Writs of Summons in the Su- perior and County Courts, served by the Sheriffs in Ontario during the year 1876. Namk of Counties. „?'"" '''- Ciiancery. 1 Algoma I 2 Brant 24 3 Brute " i]\ 4 Carleton loi 5 Elgin .........'. 26 6 Es.sex 27 7 Erontenac 21 8 Grey 27 9 Haldimand ifi 10 Halton 16 11 Hastings 54 12 Huron 28 13 Kent 41 14 Lambton jg 15 Lanark 13 16 Leeds and Grenville 26 17 Lennox and Addington .34 18 Lincoln 45 19 Middlesex . ox 20 Norfolk '.".'.'..'.."..'.' "h 21 Northumberland and Durham ... 48 22 Ontario 28 23 Oxford 44 24 Peel '. ;.■ ig 25 Perth ;51 26 Peterborough 32 27 Prescott and Russell 16 28 Prince Edward 24 29 Renfrew I3 30 Simcoe 78 31 Stormont, Dund., Glen 29 32 Victoria 48 33 Waterloo '■' 7 34 Welland 30 35 Wellington .51 36 Wentworth 67 37 York .[........ 145 1288 Superior Court No. Co, Court 1 17 Writs Served. Writs Served. 3 13 45 181 202 71 168 700 298 609 IOO2 70 213 309 79 166 261 55 78 164 75 148 246 18 78 112 48 126 189 92 163 299 60 164 262 93 207 341 64 127 209 38 120 171 81 117 224 121 146 300 106 277 428 95 210 .328 54 142 205 1.30 226 404 70 174 272 87 177 308 25 74 115 72 119 222 46 101 179 47 71 l.';4 48 114 186 70 1.52 235 190 426 694 25 91 115 66 176 290 33 75 115 56 155 241 110 259 420 124 292 483 280 676 1101 3045 6733 11066 I ;>i <'} 'i la ■) U i 28 WRITS AND BILLS OF COMPLAINT. Grand totals of Bills in Chancery, and Writs of Summons issued in the year 1876 are, In Superior OourtH fi,55rt (!oimty OourtH 11,245 Chancery 2,579 20,.'i80 No. of BillH in Chancerj* and Writs of Summons nerved by the Sheriffs ll.Ofifi Served by Attorneys 9,317 20,883 In 1877 the following return was obtained of the number of Writs and Bills of Complaint issued in Ontario in the preceding year : In the Stiperior Courts 6,.5')6 " Inferior " 11,2'15 " Chancery " 2,.'>7!J 20,380 The service fees on these, exclusive of mileage would be : In the Superior Cotirts 6,r)5G («' $2 70 §17,701 20 Inferioi " 11,245 fe 1 80 20,241 00 " Chancery " 2,579 @ 2 25 5,b02 75 843,744 95 The serving of the 20,380 Writs and Bills of Complaint issued in 1876, as above, were divided between the Sheriffs and Lawyers as follows : — SERVED BY THE SHERIFFS. In the Superior Court 3,045 @ $2 70 8,221 50 " Inferior " (i,733 (at 1 80 12,219 40 " Chancery" 1,288 (a) 2 25 2,898 00 $23,238 90 SERVED BY THE ATTORNEYS. In the Superior Court 3,511 @ $2 70 9.479 79 " Inferior " 4,512 (fl) 1 80 8,121 60 " Chancery*' 1,291® 2 25 2,904 75 $20,506 05 $43,744 95 It will be seen from the foregoing statement, that the Sheriffs have been deprived of the fees on 9,317 Writs of Summons and Bills of Complaint, amounting to $20,506.05, and the sum was not saved to the litigants as we were told it would be, both verbally and through the columns of the Press; but has been collected, with much more, by those engaged in Pro- cess-serving, as fully established by the taxed Bills of Costs herewith pub- lished, some of which are from the offices of gentlemen who stated on the floor of Parliament, and through the public press, that the services were made by the Profession for the purely benevolent object of saving costs to the litigant ! ! ! that the Sheriff's fees, or a sum equivalent to Sheriff's fees, was not, and could not be collected yet, in the face of such declara- tions we find the very gentlemen who made them, collecting, in addition to their own legal fees, more than double Sheriff's fees in many cases. The Writ of Summons in the eight taxed bills of costs herewith published, ■HITS OF SUMMONS, ETC. 29 having been served in Towns and Cities, no mileage would bo charged ; therefore the SheritTs fees, had he made the services, would have been as follows : 1 Superior Court Writ of Summons at $ 2 70 G County Court Writs of Summons at$1.80 10 80 $13 50 On looking at the foregoing Bills of Costs it will be found that, in addi- tion to their own legal fees, those who made the services collected from the Defendants the snug little sum of $27. G3, being |14. 13 pocketed by them in addition to their ovm and the Sheriff^s fees ; or an additional sura of $2.02 on each Writ over and above the Lawyer's and the Sheriff's legal fees — in other words they collected on these seven Summonses, in addition to their ()!/;/* legal fees, the 8V\m. of $3,94 on each case, being thirty four cents more than two Sheriff's fees on each. We may fairly presume that the tariff in tliese seven taxed Bills of Costs is as near as may bo the one adopted, and acted upon by such members of the legal profession as are engaged in Process-serving. Assuming that to bo the case, (and no other conclusion can be arrived at from the data before us, the 9,317 Bills in Chancery and Writs of Summons served by the Profession themselves, must have cost the litigants as follows : Sherifis' fees on 9,317 Bills in Chancery and Sum- monses $20,506 05 Additional charge by Profession of $2.02 on each Writ and Bill 18,820 34 $39,32G 39 It will be seen that the service of the 9,317 Writs of Summons and Bills in Chancery, served by the Profession, cost the litigants within $1,68G.05 of double the amount it would have cost, had the services been made by the Sheriffs — or within $4,448.85 of as much as it would have cost to have had the whole 20,380 served through the Sheriffs, viz : The Sheriffs' fees on the 20,380 Bills in Chancery and Writs of Summons issued in 1876, would be $43,774 94 Of these the Lawyers served 9,317, which, as we have shown, cost the litigants 39, '26 39 1,448 55 It will be seen that the service of 9,317 Bills of Chancery, and Writs of Summons by Lawyers, cost within $4,448.55 of as much as the whole 20,380 would have cost, had they been served by the Sheriffs. Such are the advantages of Process-serving by Lawyers. We have so far dealt with the question of Process-serving, and the way in which the Sheriffs fees are collected, where the case does not go to Judgment, ^but is settled in the Lawyer's office ; there the Bill of Costs is prepared, and paid, and as a rule includes the Sheriffs fees, or a sum equiv- alent thereto, as proven in the cases we have given, and is never sub- mitted to the scrutinizing eye of the Taxing Officer. We shall now proceed to explain to the public how the Sheriflfs fees, and w 30 SHERIFFS FEES. I .f much more are collected after the case goes to Judgment, and how the Sheriff is utilized to collect his own fees, and much more, and hand them to the Attorney. The modus operandi by which this ingenious device is worked, is as follows : — Tiie Lawyer serves the Writ of Summons, the De- fendant, it may be, defends the suit, aud Judgment is obtained against him, or he permits Judgment to be entered against him by default ; the IJill of Costs, without including the Sheriff's fees (which the Taxing-mas- ter would not allow, as the summons was not served by the Sheriff), are taxed by the Taxing-master. The Writ of Kxecution is then issued, and placed in the Sheriff's handsVith an instruction "to levy and collect so much for damages, so much for taxed costs, and so much for this Writ with his own costs and charges." The price of the Writ never was submitted to the Taxing-officer, the Attorney fixes his own price, ranging from two to four hundred per cent, above the Legal Tariff, and commands the Sheriff to collect it. If the Sheriff demurs, or hints that the charge for the Writ is high, he is told he has no right to offer an opinion, his duty being to do as he is told, or it may be hinted to him that if he does not collect the amount asked, all papers will in future be served through other hands ; thus re- minding the Sheriff of the humiliating position he occupies, that his income does not depend so much on the tariff of fees the law provides for his ser- vices, or the care and fidelity with which he performs the duties of his office, as upon the slavish obedience with which he performs the commands of those who require him to collect such charges as they may see proper to make, be they right or wrong. Below we give a list of 18 Writs of Execution, the Summonses in each cause having been served by the Attorneys; on thesis Writs of Execution the Sheriff is commanded to 'collect 8153.90, while the Taxing officer says the attorneys are entitled to only $56.53, or a fraction over one-third the amount demanded. No. Nature of Wiit. Court. Amo'nt Charg'd. Ijegal Charge . Taxed off. 1 Fi. Fa. Goods. Q B. $ 6 00 $ 4 60 1 40 2 12 00 4 60 7 40 • 3 6 00 4 60 1 40 4 C. P. 12 00 5 10 6 90 5 12 00 4 60 7 40 6 12 00 5 10 6 90 7 C. C. 10 00 2 25 7 75 8 4 00 2 25 1 75 9 4 00 2 25 1 75 10 8 00 2 25 5 75 11 5 00 2 25 2 75 12 600 2 25 3 76 13 4 00 2 56 3 44 14 10 00 2 25 1 75 15 10 00 2 25 7 75 16 10 00 2 25 7 75 17 12 00 2 56 9 44 18 10 00 2 56 7 44 Totals ........ $153 00 ,.56 33 m47 i I certify the foregoing to be a correct taxation of the fees in the above cases. S XI CtHENT Hamilton, Fell, nth, 1878. C. C. 0. ■"/ II SERVICE OF Willi's UY ATTOUNKYS. ;> p l5 u 15 15 if7'^l labove C. If tlio Slu'riff had Borvcd tlio SummonnoB in the above caseR, his foes would hiiv«3 beou as followH : (5 aiiperior Oo>irt Writs (>i| the Sheriff, by handing or mailing to him, by registered letter, within ^ twenty-four hours after such service, the original Writ, Process or Paper, ^ , with a proper affidavit of service, mileage and stamping, as hereinafter pro- "^ v^ vided attached thereto ; or in case of a Bill in Chancery, a proper Affidavit |^ of service, mileage and stamping, as required by the provisions of this Act. Then the Sheriff may enter such Bill, Writ, Process or Paper, in his Pro- cess-Book, and he shall stamp the same with the proper stamps, and also seal the same with his seal of office, and endorse on the Writ, Process, Paper or Affidavit so returned, that the service so effected was done by his authority ; in which case, the service so made shall be effectual and valid, as if made by the Sheriff, his Bailiff, or Officer, and the Sheriff shall be en- titled to the like fees, to which he would have been entitled, had the ser- vice been effected by himself, or his authorized Bailiff or Officer. "^ 3rd. — That for the convenience of Suitors, or their Attorneys or Solici- ^" tors, in any Town or incorporated Village in any County outside the Coun- r ty T6vnx the Sheriff of each County shall appoint a Bailiff or Officer in each ^5 Town or incorporated Village, in the County at a greater distance than fif- '^ teen miles from the County Town, and in which there are two or more At- "^ torneys or Solicitors practising separately, which Bailiff or Officer shall y have authority to receive, stamp and serve, for and on behalf of the said' s- Sheriff^ all such Bills in Chancery, Writs of Summons, and other Process or*r -^ 'PaperS'iMWWBlBt* as may be issued by such Attorneys or Solicitors^Wi- v 4th. — That»#hen services are effected under the last preceding section, the Bailiff or Officer shall forthwith, after such service, return to the Sheriff of the County the original Writ of Summons or other Process or Paper, or the Affidavit of Service, mileage and stamping thereof, or in the case of a w II 84 DRAFT OF PROPOSED BILL. "I Bill in Chancery, the Affidavit of Service, with his own Affidavit of such service, mileage, and stamping of the copies thereof, and such Sheriff shall stamp the original Writ of Summons and Affidavit ot the Service of the Bill in Chancery, or other Process or Papers, or the Affidavit of Service there- of, with the stamps required under the provisions of this Act ; and shall al- so seal them with his seal of office. 5th. — The Sheriflf shall enter such Writ of Summons, and Bills of Com- plaint, or other Process or Papers in his Process Book and shall be entitled to the fees thereon as shown by the Affidavit of his Bailiff or Officer. 6th. — That should any such Sheriff fail to appoint a Bailiff or Officer in any such Town or Village as provided by the third section of this Act, after ten day's notice so to do, having been served upon him by any such At- torney or Solicitor, then on stamping such Bill in Chancery or any copy thereof, or any copy of Writ, or any Process or Paper, as hereinafter re- quired by this Act; such Attorney or Solicitor may effect the service through or by any literate person, and on producing to the Taxing-officer an affi- davit setting forth such failure on the part of the Sheriff, shall tax to the party entitled thereto for such service, the same fees as the Sheriff would have been entitled to, had the service been effected by or through him. 7th. —That all Bills in Chancery or copies thereof, and Affidavit of Ser- vice, and all Writs of Summons and copies thereof, and all other Process or Papers issued out of the Superior Courts of Law, or the County Courts of the Province of Ontario, shall be stamped as follows : Original Writ of Summons in Superior Court $ 20 cts. '« «' " County " 15 " Affidavit of Service of Bill in Chancery 20 " Every copy of Bill in Chancery, and every copy of Writ of Summons in the Superior and County Courts, and other Process or Papers 5 '' 8th. — Every Sheriff, Bailiff or Officer, or other person who shall serve or execute any Bill in Chancery, (i any Writ, or the Copy of Writ or Bill in Chancery, or other Process or Papers which is not duly stamped under the provisions of this Act, or who refuses or neglects to return such Writ, Bill in Chancery or other Process or Paper, to the Sheriff as required under Sec. 2. of this Act, shall be liable to all the penalties hereinafter provided, and every such service or execution contrary to the provisions of this Act, shall be void, and no recompense shall be allowed therefore. 9th. — The Lieutenant-Governor may from time to time, by Order in Coun- cil, direct stamps to be prepared for the purposes of this Act, which stamps shall be of one kind, but of ♦^'^le different denominations specified in section seven. 10th. — The Lieutenant-Governor may, by Order in Council, direct of what design and form, and of what colour or colours the said stamps and the different denominations thereof shall be used, and from time to time, as he finds or considers it convenient or expedient, may alter or change the same. 11th. — The Provincial Treasurer shall procure the necessary stamps re- .\ DRAFT OF PROPOSED BILL. 35 re- quired under this Act, from time to time, as they may be required, and shall keep an account of the numbers, denominations and amounts thereof, and of the dates at which they are received and delivered. 12 th. — The Provincial Treasurer, upon payment to him of the proper amount by the Sheriff, shall deliver such of the said stamps as may be from time to time required by any such Sheriff, and he shall keep an account of the number, denomination, and amount thereof, according as he delivers them. 13th. — The Sheriff upon payment to him of the proper amount, by any Barrister or Attorney-at-Law, practising in his County, shall deliver such of the five cent stamps (not exceeding at any one time the value of one dollar) to any such Barrister or Attorney-at-Law, or Law-firm of which such Barrister or Attorney may be a member. 1 4th. — The Sheriff shall keep an account of the number, amount, and dates at which such stamps were delivered, and also of the number of papers returned to him by such Barrister, Attorney-at-Law, or Law-firm as having been served and stamped by them, or any one of them. 15th. — No more stamps shall be delivered to such Barrister, Attorney- at-Law or Law-firm, until they have returned to the Sheriff papers served and stamped by them, corresponding in number to the number of stamps received by them, except in cases where the stamps have been lost or de- stroyed, and satisfactorily explained to the Sheriff. 16th. — The Lieutentnt-Governor in Council may, from time to time, make such regulations as may be thought expedient for an allowance for stamps which through mistake or inad venture may have been improperly or un- necessarily used : and such allowance may be in money or other stamps in lieu of the stamps so allowed for. 17th. — Every Sheriff, Bailiff or other person who knowingly executes any Bill in Chancery or Writ of Summons or any other Process or Paper issued out of any of the Courts aforesaid, without being first duly stamped under this Act, or who refuses or negli'cts to return the original VVrit of Summons, or other Process or Paper, or Affidavit of Service, mileage and stamping thereof, or in case of a Bill in Chancery, the Affidavit of Service thereof, to the Sheriff as required by the second section of this Act, shall be subjected for the first offence to a fine not exceeding ten dollars, and for the second and every subsequent offence of twenty dollars, and, in default of ppyment of such fines, shall be subject to imprisonment for one month, for the first offence ; and two months for the second and every subsequent offence. 18th. — When a stamp has under this Act, been attached to a Writ, or the copy of any Writ or any other Process or Paper, or in the ca^e of a Bill of Chancery, to the Bill in Chancery, or the copy of any Bill in Chan- cery, or the Affidavit of Service thereof, it shall be the duty of the Sheriff, or his Bailiff, or officer, or other person forthwith to cancel such stamps, by writing or stamping, or impressing in ink, on such stamp, the date ot such stamping, so as effectually to obliterate and cancel the stamp, and so as not to admit of its being used again. ill ! ! i •! 86 DRAFT OP PROPOSED BILL. 19th. — Every Sheriff or other person who knowingly fails or omits to obliterate or'cancel any stamp immediately after the same is used, shall be subject to a fine, not exceeding ten dollars for each offence, and in default of payment thereof, to imprisonment for a period of one month. 20th. — The Provincial Treasurer shall at the close of each year, pay over to the Treasurer of each County, the amount paid him by the Sheriff of any such County for stamps, less the actual cost thereof, and the money so paid shall be applied towards the payment of Jurors. 21st. — Everv ''^sxing Master who shall tax any Bill of Costs for serving any Wrii *: kji u uons, Bill in Chancery, or other Process or Paper, without being stamped with the stamps required under the provisions of this Act, and also sealed with the Offi jial Seal of the Sheriff of the County in which the service was effected, shall be liable to all the penalties imposed under Section 17 of this Act. 22nd. — Ai* ''" '"j'V.?ed by thin Act shall be paid to the County Trea- surer for the tjcflfcr^l " o of ihe County, and shall be recovered before any Court having corn n -<: . jirisdicMon to the amount, at the instance of any ratepayev in the Count/ ;\i i'h:th the service was made; and the produc- tion of ?».iy Wri> , B'.ll ot >L "rry, or Affidavit of Service, thereof, or other Prot::^8 or ^ ap^' 'iip«' .. m or stamped for too low and insufficient a sum, or the Rtymp oi whiclj :« . jucoerly and sufficiently obliterated, and cancelled or on the proof oi any such Writ, Bill in Chancery or Affi- davit of Service thereof, or other Process or Papers having been unstamped or not sufficiently stamped at the time it was served or executed as afore- said, or of the stamp not having been properly and sufficiently obliterated or cancelled, shall be sufficient "prima facie " evidence of such Writ, Bill of Chancery or Affidavit of Service thereof, or other Process or Paper hav- ing knowingly and willingly so issued, served or executed without being or having been first stamped, or without the stamp having been properly and sufficiently obliterated and cancelled. The Sheriffs' tariff of fees allowed by the Judges for serving papers in the Superior and County Courts is made up as follows : — SUPERIOR COURTS. Receiving and Filing $0 25 Serving each Defendant 1 50 Drawing Affidavit. 25 Commissioner 20 present proposed Return 50 tariff, tariff. $2 70 $2 45 " COUNTY COURTS. Beceiving and Filing $0 10 Serving each Defendant 1 00 Dra^eing Affidavit 25 * Commissioner. 20 present proposed Return. 25 tariff, tariff. $1 80 II 60 PROPOSED sheriffs' FEES. 87 COURT OF CHANCERY. Receiving and Filing $0 25 Serving each office copy Bill, including Affida- ) , vit of Service j Warrrant to BailiflF. 50 Return 50 present proposed TAFJFF. TARIFF. $2 25 92 00 Under the proposed system of stamps the Sheriffs fees would be reduced as follows: — « Superior Court Summons, from $2 70 to $2 45 County Court " " 1 80 » 1 60 Bills in Chancery " 2 25 " 2 00 The proposed stamps, if placed on the Writs of Summons issued in 1876, would yield the following sums : — 6,556 Writs of SummonB in Superior Court;, @ 20 cts ) ^- „^„ __ 6,556 Copies do do do 5 " |:pi,t)a6 00 11,215 Writs of Summons in County Court, @ 15 cts I «o oio nn 11,215 Copies do do do 5" j-»A^W 00 2,579 Aifidavits of Service of Bills in Chancery @ 20 c ) «c « < -r- 2,579 Copies of Bills in Chancery " 5 f «b4» 7o ' - * ■ - - ^ $4,526 75 Only one copy is estimated with each original in the above Statement, but many of them will have more, which we may safely estimate will bring the receipts from stamps up to $5,000, being fully 10 per cent, of the fees on Process-serving. In conclusion, we say that every officer should perform the duties assigned him by Law, and receive the emoluments attached thereto, by a strict ob- servance of this rule, the work would be more punctually »nd better per- formed than when two or more are each engaged in it ; no ill feeling would arise, or cause of complaint be given ; each moving and acting within the sphere of his owe duty. In these pages we have given a case where a young man served the Sum- mons, and solemnly swore that he was a Sheriff's officer, when in fact the Sheriff was not aware of his existence ; another young man made oath, that he paid the Seriff's fees on these papers, amounting to $10.00, when no such payment was made ; these two false oaths were taken to secure to the Plaintiff's lawyer the paltry sum of five dollars more to his costs. We contend that in view of these startling facts, and as a protection to the public, all papers requiring personal service should be recorded in the Sheriff's office, for what is there to prevent two men like these from going a little further, and for a consideration make oath that they had made ser- vice, when none was made, and obtain judgment which might be«enforced a£,ainst the Defendant's estate when he was in his grave. m \l i I 38 MEMORANDUM OF SUMMONSES. Memorandum of Summonses and other pajfers served in the County of Went' worth by others than tJie Slieriff, and for which charges were made : 1878 April 6th April 8th Barnes vs. Garvin. I Served by a Division Court Bailiff, Fees $8.<8. I Sheriffs Bailiff quite as convenient. I OSLER . gg^^g^ ^y ^ Division Court Bailiff, Fees $3.59. Smith I ^^^^'^^ '" Bailiff was quite as convenient. April 12 Barnes \ g^^.^^^ ^^ ^ Division Court Bailiff, Fees $5.69. Bellemy 1 ^^^^''^'^ Bailiff was quite as convenient. April 22 McPhail \ g^^^^^ ^^ ^ Division Court Bailiff, Fees $4.63. Rfvfi s 1 ^^^"^^^ Bailiflf was quite as convenient. ^ Williams I This Writ of Summons was sent from Toronto vs. > to the Division Clerk at Dundas for service, and Field. ) he handed it to the Sheriff's Bailiff. Sept. 21 Dominion Organ Co. ') vs. BURBANK. Stanley vs. Rice. Dunn vs. Cook et al This Writ of Summons was sent •& Wardell, of Dundas, for service it to the Sheriff's Bailiff. to Robertson ; they handed Dec. 2 Wilson vs. Giles et al. { This Subpoena was sent from London to Messrs. J Osier & Gwyn, of Dundas, for service ; they were "^ unable to find the Defendant, and handed the sub- V poena to the Sheriff for service. /' In this cause one Defendant lived in the City and J the other in the Country ; the one in the City was ^ served by the Attorney himself, the one in the V Country was given to the Sheriff to serve. There were two Defendants in this cause, one in the City, the other fifteen miles in the Coun- try ; the one in the City was served by the At- torney himself; the Sheriff was favoured with the serving of the other, at a time when the roads . were almost impassable. tr * ••