Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1147

preserving his right, and the more sure and just payment of his fees of office by the said Mr. Metcalfe, according to the true intent and meaning of the ordinance of 18th of June 1668, before mentioned, it was ordered, that the said Mr. Winter should enter the answer in question in his book, or permit his deputy so to do; and should also file and enter any proceedings for the said Mr. Metcalfe, according to the usual course of proceedings, but to be without any prejudice as to any fees due, or to become due from the said Mr. Metcalfe to the said Mr. Winter, and as to that matter, either of the petitioners were to be at liberty to apply to the court concerning the same, as they should be advised.

And the appellant, by his said hill, charged, that such ready money payments would at this time be more unreasonable, because, since the making of the order of June 1668, by which the pro-[559]-portion of fees is prescribed, divers duties had been imposed by government on writs and copies, and Chancery proceedings of all kinds, and particularly divers duties, amounting to 3d. per sheet on all copies of bills, answers, replications, depositions, and other records in the said office, which duties the sworn clerks had usually paid, though it was not so directed by any act of parliament; and also because the said sworn clerks were obliged frequently to give long credit for such office copies, and other proceedings, and sometimes never received any payments from their clients, whereby they lost not only their own fees, but all the payments they may have previously made, besides the loss arising from a large sum being at all events for a long time employed without bringing any interest: and the appellant also further charged, that by the course of the court before 1668, as well as since, the sworn clerks were not liable to pay any fees, or part of any fees, in ready money, or otherwise, to the six clerks, unless they had actually received the same; and that if any six clerk was not content to wait for his money till his sworn clerk had first received the same, he might, and was at liberty to apply to the client in the cause for payment thereof; and particularly, the appellant expressly charged, that the respondent William Luther Sewell, and the other respondents, understood the practice so to be, for that he and they had actually received divers sums of money from the suitors of the said Court of Chancery, and not by the hands of his or their sworn clerk or sworn clerks, and particularly, that the said respondent William Luther Sewell had so received divers sums of money from several of the suitors of the court who were the clients of the appellant.

And the appellant, by his bill, further charged, that, in pursuance of the agreement before stated, or some other agreements, the respondents the six clerks pretended, that they were not obliged or compellable to keep any deputies for the transacting the business of their office, and that one six clerk might attend alone, and do the business of all the other five, and of the six deputies, though the consequence thereof was, that the records of the suitors both plaintiffs and defendants (which ought to be kept separate) were indiscriminately mixed together, and thereby great delay and injury were occasioned to the appellant and his clients, and other the suitors of the court, in their business; and particularly, the appellant charged, that the said Samuel Reynardson had in part withdrawn himself from the duties of his office for ten years and upwards, and had not only so done, but had, for more than two years last past, dismissed his deputy, and had then no deputy or other person properly authorised to dispatch and transact his business in the office, and that all the six clerks had removed the bill books and other books belonging to their respective studies and divisions into some private room, and had denied the appellant access thereto.

And after stating and charging several other matters, the appellant, by his bill, prayed a discovery; and that the compositions before mentioned to be payable by him to the respondents William Luther Sewell and John Kipling, respectively, might be established for the time past, and might be declared to remain yet unde-[560]- termined; and that the agreement before mentioned to be entered into by the said respondents respectively might be set aside; and that any orders confirming or tending to confirm the same might be rescinded; and that the respondents might be directed to perform the duties of their respective clients in their respective studies and divisions only; and that each of them might appoint a separate deputy for transacting the business of his particular department and division, agreeable to the ordinances, usage, and practice of the court, to the end that the appellant and his clients might not be delayed