( 846 )
November 16and 21.
CHITTAMBALAM v. POOTHATHAMBI.
D. C., Colombo, 12,568.
BUI of coals—One proctor appearing for another proctor—Costs of work don,'by acting proctor—Taxation against losing party.
When, owing to the absence of a proctor in a case, another proctorappears for him without objection by the court or the losing party, thework done by the latter proctor should be accounted to be work of theformer proctor and charged against the losing party.
HE plaintiff instituted this case in the month of Mar 1899, andon 17th October it was dismissed with costs. The defend-
ant’s proctor was Mr. John Pulle. In his absence on the trialday Mr. Tisseverasinghe appeared on behalf of Mr. John Pulleand instructed counsel. On 21st March, 1900, Mr. Tisseverasinghesigned defendant’s bill of costs “ for proctor for defendant,” butthe taxation was cancelled on the ground that Mr. John Pullehad gone to Jaffna to practise there, and Mr. Tisseverasinghe wasnot defendant’s proctor.
On 17th July, 1900, Mr. Tisseverasinghe filed a proxy on behalfof the defendant and again had his bill taxed. The plaintiffobjected, but the District Judge overruled him and allowed thetaxation.
Plaintiff appealed against this order.
Elliott, for appellant.
Keppel Browne and H. J. C. Pereira, for defendant.
Cur. adv. vult.
21st November, 1900. Lawrie, J.—
The defendant during the earlier stages of this litigation wasrepresented by his proctor, Mr. John Pulle. Mr. John Pulle wentto Jaffna and afterwards accepted an appointment there. Thedefendant then gave a proxy to Mr. Tisseverasinghe. The defend-ant having got judgment with costs, Mr. Tisseverasinghe
( 347 )
presented the defendant's bill of costs for taxation. The plaintiffobjected to certain items in the bill for work done after Mr. JohnPulle left for Jaffna, and before Mr. Tisseverasinghe got hisproxy. It was said that during the interval Mr. Tisseverasinghehad looked after Mr. John Pulle’s business.
The taxing officer allowed these items. The taxation wasbrought under the review of the District Court. The plaintiff con-tended that Mr. Tisseverasinghe could not be allowed costs forwork done by him before the proxy to him was filed. The learnedDistrict Judge rejected the objection and sustained the taxation.
In my opinion he was right. Mr. John Pulle remained proctoron the record until the appointment of Mr. Tisseverasinghe. Thework done was work chargeable against the losing party. Theproctor on the record was responsible for it.
There is a presumption that a proctor does the work for whichhe charges, but it is not possible that he personally can attend toevery detail of every action in which he holds a proxy. Muchmust be done by partners and assistants and clerks; in the caseof illness or necessary holiday, a friendly proctor may act.
In this case Mr. Tisseverasinghe acted as Mr. John Pulle’s friendduring his absence; he did so openly without objection either bythe Court or by the plaintiff. It is my opinion that the work sodone should be accounted to be Mr. John Pulle’s work, for whichhis client is entitled to charge the losing party. I affirm theorder with costs.
November liIand 21.
T quite agree, as there was no suggestion that Mr. Tissevera-singhe was acting covertly or improperly under the powers givento Mr. John Pulle, or without the knowledge of the latter. Thechief object of the rule limiting all power to act to the proctor onthe record is to notify to the other party who is responsible inthat office and the original responsibility here continued.
CHITTAMBALAM v. POOTHATHAMBI