Scottish Court of Session Decisions

When the pursuer's taxed account of expenses in this case came before the Court in the Single Bills their Lordships' attention was drawn to a note to the Auditor's docquet in the following terms:— Note.—In this case a very large amount is charged for copies. This would have been very much less if the copies had been typewritten. Without referring to all the copies the Auditor finds that by typewriting the copies of the precognitions and correspondence there would have been a saving of £34, 8s. 6d. It seems unreasonable that such an unnecessary expense should be allowed, but there being no rule against it the Auditor has not felt himself entitled to deal with the matter.”

The expenses were taxed at the sum of £459, 8s. 2d. No objections had been lodged to the Auditor's report.

The table of fees in the Supreme Courts of Scotland as regulated by Act of Sederunt, 15th July 1876, provides as follows “3. Copying papers per sheet—(1) If in Eng lish 1s. 6d… . Where more than three copies of papers are necessary the same shall be printed, and if not printed the charges for three copies only shall be allowed by the Auditor.”

Counsel for the pursuer argued that as no objection had been taken to the report the question was now closed, but that even if the question had still been open no objection could have been taken, for only two written copies were charged for, and that was allowed (Act of Sederunt, 15th July 1876). An agent was not bound to use a new and, possibly for him, inconvenient

Page: 143↓

process, although it might be cheaper, provided he kept within the provisions of the Act of Sederunt.

Counsel for the defender argued that where a note was added by the Auditor to his docquet the Court would consider it, although no objection had been lodged— Dempster v. Wallace, Hunter, & Co., 1834, 12 S. 844. As it was now possible to get type-writing done outside, inconvenience could not be pleaded.