Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1143

the six clerk so attending shall, from time to time, appoint to receive the same. And the said six clerks do hereby give notice, that the said agreements are to take place from the said first day of Michaelmas term next. Dated this 27th day of August in the year of our Lord 1785.

It is intended that after these agreements shall take place, the attending six clerk shall sign the proceedings in his own name in case the same are to be filed in his own division; and that in case the same are to be filed in any other division, he shall sign them in the name of the six clerk in whose division [553] they are to be filed, adding thereto his own name; and that all copies of such proceedings shall not only be so signed, and the number of folios set down in the first sheet, but that a stamp shall be provided for each division, and that the first sheet of every copy shall be stamped, to denote the division in which the proceedings are filed.

But no such notice was ever delivered to the appellant.

Here it is to be observed, that the six clerks being under the order of the 15th of June 1668, and, by the practice of the court, as established by various orders, entitled only to receive their proportion of fees prescribed by the said order of the 15th of June 1668, from the sworn clerks, in case they had received the whole thereof from their clients, they the said six clerks for the time being have, in order to avoid the inconvenience, and delay, and expence which would necessarily arise to them in case of non-payment, and they should be put to sue for their proportion of fees from time to time, been induced to agree to compound, and have in fact, from time to time up to the making of the order of the 29th of July 1785, compounded with most of the sworn clerks in their respective divisions for their proportion of fees, at a certain sum, payable half yearly, though such sum was less than the real amount thereof, and many of such compositions were, and had, for a long time before the making of the said order of the 29th of July 1785. been in existence, and particularly a composition, by which the appellant had agreed to pay, and the respondent William Luther Sewell, in whose division the appellant is, had agreed to accept the yearly sum of £42 in lien of his proportion of all fees which might be coming to him; also a composition of £4 4s. which the appellant had agreed to pay to the respondent John Kipling, and he had agreed to accept, for the proportion of fees due to him.

On the first day of Michaelmas term 1785, the respondents the six clerks proceeded to put their agreement of the 2d of May 1785, and the order of the 29th July 1785, into execution; and in order to compel the sworn clerks to comply therewith, they in many instances took upon themselves to refuse, and did in fact refuse to file the records brought to them for that purpose, until they were paid their proportion of all fees due to them, though such fees had not been received by the sworn clerks, and though the usual compositions were tendered to them, insomuch that at one time there were many hundreds of records remaining unfiled for that reason only; besides which, the six clerks, not contented with having refused to file the records brought to them, by which means the business of the court was put into a state of great confusion, instituted divers suits or actions in the petty bag office, wherein all suits instituted on the law side of the Court of Chancery are first commenced, against several sworn clerks, for payment of their fees in ready money, and particularly the respondent William Luther Sewell commenced an action against Mr. Henry Barker, one of the sworn clerks in his division, for the amount of fees alledged to be due from the said Mr. Barker to him; which [554] action came on to be tried at the sittings in Guildhall, before Mr. Justice Buller, on the 7th of July 1787, when the Judge was pleased to direct the jury to find a verdict for the respondent William Luther Sewell, on the footing that the clerks in court were liable to answer to the six clerks for all their fees, whether received or not from the client or suitor.

In this situation of things the appellant found himself not only greatly hindered in carrying on the business of his clients in the court, but also put in danger of being harassed with suits of law, from day to day, for the recovery of the fees claimed by the respondents, though he had never received the same himself, and though he had always paid, and was ready to pay his compositions for such fees; and he therefore was induced to file a bill in the court against the respondents, to be relieved in these respects.

Accordingly, in Michaelmas term 1787, the appellant filed his bill against the