Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1146

trial produced no instance whatsoever of any payment in ready money by a clerk in court, compelled in equity, or claimed at law and the appellant, by his bill, further charged, that a schedule was annexed to the said bill filed by the said Sir William Parkyns, in which the fees claimed by him were contained; but that such schedule was not annexed to the office copy of the said bill, at the time the same was produced in evidence at the trial of the said action; and that the said schedule had been purposely separated from the said bill, and was secreted by some former six clerk; and, that the said schedule had since the said trial been found in some private drawer, or other place, belonging to such former six clerk; and that if the said schedule had been produced at the trial of the said action, it would have appeared thereby, that a charge and demand was previously necessary to be made by the six clerk, and that the particulars of such demand were necessary to be stated, before he was entitled to sue in any court whatever for any fees due to him and the appellant also further charged, that it evidently appeared, by the tenor of Sir William Parkyns's said bill, that at that time the six clerks fees were not paid in ready money, because, among other reasons, the said bill demanded fees due eighteen years before the filing thereof, and yet the verdict was found for the said William Luther Sewell, on the evidence of that mutilated and defective bill, and the plea and answer thereto.

And the appellant further charged, that the said verdict was contrary to various ordinances and orders made in Chancery; and that the order and practice of that court, in regard to its own officers, and their fees, was only cognizable in that court; and, as an evidence thereof, the appellant charged, that fees had, for 120 years and upwards, that is, before and since 1668, remained due to the six clerks from the sworn clerks, and yet no action for payment thereof, in ready money, or otherwise, had ever been brought, or attempted to be brought, by a six clerk against a sworn clerk, till the action brought by the said respondent, William Luther Sewell; and that though the six clerks had frequently applied to the Court of Chancery for payment of their fees in ready money, without making any previous demand, yet such relief had ever been denied and in order to shew that the six clerks were never considered as entitled to be paid their fees by the sixty clerks in ready [558] money, the appellant, by his bill, charged, that, by an order, dated 24th June 1731, made by Sir Joseph Jekyll, then Master of the Rolls, in a cause, Wall against Lock, then depending in the said court, upon the petition of Mr. Samborne, then a sworn clerk, against Mr. East, then one of the six clerks, who had refused to sign a copy of the pleadings tendered to him without being paid his fees, as six clerk, for the same, in ready money, it was ordered; that the said Mr. East should sign the said copy upon the said Mr. Samborne's delivering to him the usual note: and that, by another order of the 25th January 1752, made by Sir John Strange, then Master of the Rolls, upon the petition of John Collins, Esquire, then one of the six clerks, against Mr. Cholwich, then one of the sworn clerks in his division; which petition prayed, amongst other things, that the said Mr. Cholwich might give the petitioner an account of folios of all such copies of pleadings or records which he had made, and of commissions of rebellion, and of all exemplifications which had been made by him, and in what causes they were respectively made, etc. and might pay the petitioner his fees for the same, it was ordered that, upon the petitioner, Mr. Collins, (the six clerk,) delivering to Mr. Cholwich a charge according to the course of the office, Mr. Cholwich should, within two months from the time of the said Mr. Collins's delivering to him such charge, fill up the blanks therein with the number of folios of all the copies, commissions of rebellion, and exemplifications, made by the said Mr. Cholwich; and it was ordered, that the petition, as to the rest of the matters therein complained of, should be dismissed, but without prejudice to any remedy the said Mr. Collins should be advised to take, for the recovery of such his demands and that, by another subsequent order, of 26th June 1771, made by Sir Thomas Sewell, Master of the Rolls, in a cause, intituled, The Attorney General v. Nixon, upon the petition of Mr. Metcalfe, one of the sworn clerks, against Mr. Winter, (the present respondent of that name,) his six clerk, for refusing to enter into his books the defendant's answer, which had been filed by the defendant's six clerk, and for refusing to file any proceedings for the said petitioner, and also upon the cross petition of the said Mr. Winter against the said Mr. Metcalfe, for refusing to pay the fees due to him, as six clerk, and praying an order for the effecting and