HC Deb 20 February 1890 vol 341 cc729-30
MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statement, made upon oath in the case of Smither v. Devereux, by the Deputy Registrar of the Mayor's Court, London, that he knew of no regular scale of costs as applied to the Court. He used his discretion as to the costs he taxed. He did not restrict himself at all; and also to the observation made in the same case by Mr. Commissioner Kerr, that he had sometimes seen in his own Court very heavy hills of costs in the Mayor's Court, and had spoken very frankly about it; And, whether there is any, and, if so, what objection to the exercise of the power vested in Her Majesty by the 2nd section of "The Borough and Local Courts of Record Act, 1872," to direct by an Order in Council the application to the Mayor's Court of Clauses 3, 4, and 5 of the Schedule to that Act, which require the Judge of the Court to settle a table of fees, subject to the allowance of the Rule Committee of the Supreme Court?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,) Birmingham, E.

I have made inquiry into this matter, and I am informed by the Registrar of the Mayor's Court that the question whether there is a regular scale of costs in the Mayor's Court is the question at issue in the case of "Smithers v. Devereux." That case is now in the Queen's Bench Division on appeal from the City of London Court, and is likely to be reached in a fortnight or three weeks. Pending such appeal, I cannot properly express any opinion on the points raised by the hon. Member's question.

MR. A. O'CONNOR. (Donegal, E.)

Is it the fact that the fees in the Mayor's Court are higher than elsewhere?

MR. MATTHEWS

The hon. and learned Member must put the question own upon the Paper.