(1.) This is a summons for review of the taxation of plaintiff's bill of costs in Suit No. 1428 of 1919 and Appeal No. 15 of 1920. Both in the Suit and in the Appeal the brief fees claimed for counsel were fifteen G. Ma. for the one and thirteen G. Ms. for the other. The Taxing Master has reduced these to twelve G. Ms. and ten G. Ms. in the Suit, and ten G. Ms. and eight G. Ms. in the Appeal.
(2.) These are the reductions complained of and it is said that they offend against the cases of Robb V/s. Connor (1874) Ir. R. 9 Eq. 373 and Sturgis V/s. Morse (No. 2)(1859) 26 Beav. 562. In Robb V/s. Connor, the Taxing Master's decision was reversed, because he had in fact exercised no discretion. He reduced the fees marked by the attorney on the brief not because he considered them excessive but merely in a spirit of wanton interference out of a desire to clip and shave. That is not the case here. The Taxing Master's order shows that he has considered the nature and importance of the suit, the amount involved, and has decided on such consideration that the fees of twelve and ten G. Ms. are reasonable and proper.
(3.) The case of Sturgia V/s. Morse (No. 2) lays down no hard and fast rule. Indeed in some cases higher fees have been allowed in the Appeal Court. The Taxing Master allowed lower fees on the ground that the counsel engaged were already familiar with the facts.