D. C. 1907 PLENDER LEITH 1. PARSONS. Riddell, J. 9. "Letter to client to call... .*. .50 .02” It is claimed that the client would have had to call in any case, and that the solicitor should have waited for him to come in. I do not think so. Then it is said that the charge should be included in the instructions given when client did call. I think not; and the quotation from Cameron on Costs, p. 118, does not assist. 10. Attending all day making copy of entries in Howard's Brown v. Sewell, 16 Ch. D. 517, is cited as against this charge, but I am unable to see the relevancy of that case here. This was allowed at so much per folio, and is justified by item 57.‡ 13. It is said that five items here are not allowable by the tariff. I need not refer specially to the tariff items, but the objection is baseless. 14. Attended by defendants going over account and sur- $5.00 16. Feb. 6. Attended by T. Hislop, going over accounts, *This was a letter to client to call on the solicitor after the latter had received notice that the plaintiff proposed to cross-examine the defendant on his affidavits filed pending the reference. Howard was the solicitor who had had charge of the estate of Mary Ann Plenderleith, and the books were those in which he made entries in reference to that estate. . (COPIES.) 57. Of pleadings, brief and other documents, when no other provision is made, and copies properly allowable. Allowed by taxing officer at $5.00 in all. Are proper charges under item 142.* 17. Subpoena. It is argued that once a subpoena has been procured in any action, no second subpoena should be obtained, and Rule 480 is appealed to to support that contention. Counsel for the plaintiff, upon the argument, stated that it was his practice, after having used a subpoena for one day, to alter it for use in the same action if he required to subpoena witnesses for a subsequent occasion. I hope that he is singular in that practice. Once a subpoena has been used to bring the witnesses who are required to be sworn at any sittings of the Court, whether at nisi prius or in the Master in Ordinary's office, it is proper and I think necessary, to procure a new subpoena for the witnesses to be examined upon a subsequent day. I am not now discussing cases in which it is known in advance and before the first sittings that a certain witness will be required at a particular later day, or even at any time in the future. In that case the witness may be subpoenaed before the first sittings, and told that he will be needed upon the day certain, or that he will be notified of the day upon which he will be needed. I am not deciding that such a subpoena and notice would be effective, but simply that it would not be improper. But after the first day of the sittings, it would be irregular to alter the date in the subpoena, and a witness served with a subpoena on its face for a day then past could not be compelled to obey the subpoena. This objection is overruled. $1.00 19. Mar. 13. Attending at Master in Ordinary, and arranging "Attended by client and advising... $0.50" D. C. 1907 PLENDER LEITH v. PARSONS Riddell, J. See tariff item 106;† and in lieu of a letter. *142. When it has been satisfactorily proved that proceedings have been taken by solicitors out of court to expedite proceedings, save costs or compromise actions, an allowance is to be made therefor in the discretion of the taxing officer. †(ATTENDANCES.) 106. Every other necessary attendance. D. C. 1907 PLENDER- v. PARSONS. Riddell, J. 21. Attending to leave authorities with Master in Ordinary. $0.50 Perusing and considering. $2.00 Allowed at $1.00, and properly so by tariff item 89.* It was argued by Mr. Hislop that it wasn't much of an affidavit anyway, and didn't need perusal. I cannot think, however, that any solicitor would be justified, upon receiving an affidavit by and from the solicitor on the other side, in saying, "Oh, well, this is another of that man's affidavits. I shall just toss it into the waste paper basket." It might, indeed, turn out that that would be the proper destination for it, but it would scarcely be considered safe for any solicitor to take that for granted. 23. Letter to Master with objection to reception of evidence in affidavit filed by plaintiff. Allowed by taxing officer at $0.50. $1.00 Letter to Mr. Hislop, with copy of letter to Master... $1.00 Allowed by taxing officer at $0.50. Said to be useless and unnecessary. I do not so find. 24. Perusal accounts, considering and taking instructions $5.00 $5.00 Allowed by taxing officer at $1.00. Not too much I think. 26. No counsel fees, it is argued, should have been allowed on the reference, as, it is said, no important point or matter was involved. I am unable to agree. I think that the taxing officer *(PERUSALS.) 89. Of affidavits and exhibits of a party adverse in interest, filed or produced on any application, when perusal is necessary. +(INSTRUCTIONS.) 38. For such other important step or proceeding in the suit as the taxing officer is satisfied warrants such a charge. rightly exercised the discretion given him by the rules, and that Since the above was written I have had the advantage of a conference with my Lord the only surviving Judge of those who constituted the Court which decided the case of Re Robinson; and I am by him authorized to say that I have correctly interpreted that case, and that the Court never intended to lay down the rule that copies of depositions in the Master's office could in no case be allowed on taxation between party and party or otherwise. The appeal to the Divisional Court was argued on October 28th, 1907, before MULOCK, C.J. Ex.D., and BRITTON and CLUTE, JJ. T. Hislop, for the plaintiff, contended that the costs of procuring copies of the evidence before the Master should not have been allowed without a special order of the Court, or special direction of the Master: Con. Rule 675, 676; that the ordinary judgment for costs to be taxed does not cover extraordinary and unusual costs such as these: Ashworth v. Outram (1878), 9 Ch.D. 483. He also cited Re Robinson, 16 P.R. 423; Gordon on Costs, p. 228, and cases there cited; Osmund v. Mutual Cycle and Manufacturing Supply Co., Ltd., [1899] 2 Q.B. 488, at pp. 495-6; In re De Nicols, De Nicols v. Curlier, [1906] W. N. 192; In re Blyth and Fanshawe (1882), 10 Q.B.D. 207. PER CURIAM. These authorities go to shew only that primâ facie these costs should not be allowed. H. Irwin, K.C., for the defendant, contended that the evidence was necessary, and that not through any failure of his client to file proper accounts, but that four-fifths of it was occasioned by a point raised by the plaintiff as to whether the mortgagee must *(COUNSEL FEES.) 155. On attendance on reference to Master when counsel necessary. 156. Fee on drawing and settling allegations in precipe for revivor D. C. 1907 PLENDER LEITH v. PARSONS. Riddell, J. D.C. 1907 PLENDER- บ. PARSONS. be considered to be in possession or not, as to which he did not succeed. Hislop, in reply. PER CURIAM.-We are of opinion that the matter of costs of procuring copies of evidence is to be dealt with according to the facts of each case. If it was reasonable to procure the copies, it was right to allow them. The appeal is dismissed with costs. A. H. F. L. C. A. 1907 Dec. 23. [IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.] REX V. HILL. Indian Conviction for Unlawfully Practising Medicine Ontario Medical Act The defendant, an unenfranchised treaty Indian, residing on a reserve, was Held, that the defendant was subject to the provisions of the Medical Act, and was properly convicted. Per OSLER, J.A.:-Parliament may remove an Indian from the scope of the provincial laws, but, to the extent to which it has not done so, he must in his dealings outside the reserve govern himself by the general law which applies there. Semble, also, per OSLER, J.A., that the question was not one proper to be raised by means of a special case stated under R.S.O. 1897, ch. 91, sec. 5. The Medical Act does not in terms profess to be applicable to Indians, and the question was really whether it could be interpreted as applicable to them, not whether it was ultra vires if applicable to them. THE defendant, George W. Hill, of the township of Tuscarora, in the county of Brant, was on the 17th September, 1907, convicted before John Telford, police magistrate for Hanover and justice of the peace for the county of Grey, for that he, the said George W. Hill, between the 26th January, 1907, and the 1st August, 1907, at the town of Hanover, in the county of Grey, did unlawfully practise medicine for hire, gain, or hope of reward, by attending upon and prescribing for Mrs. John Collinson and one |