Tweet
I have just been re-reading some news accounts on Montie and I realised that we presume that he drowned on 1 December 1888.
However the Times (London) Thursday, 29 November 1888 reports on what we have always thought may have been his last Court case.
But was it.
This was what is called a stated case. I don't want to boar anyone with a law lecture but a "Stated Case" is a sort of mini-appeal on a discrete issue, in this case the issue appears to be if the two tenants could both claim rights as they were joint tenants of the property. We know that Monte prevailed in the case, and that seems to be where we have all left it. The original case was heard by a Barrister, I imagine sitting as what is referred to in the United Kingdom as a Recorder dealing with more basic cases.
However there is more, the last sentence of the Times report states:
The Case sent to be amended, will, his Lordship said, be taken on Saturday.
This simply means that having decided that both Mr Hakes, being eligible could now have their substantive applications heard, and they would be heard on Saturday 1 December. Back before the person who had originally heard it, as a general rule.
Now it is not always the case that the same Barrister appears on both the original hearing and the "appeal". However if it isn't it usually because either the Barrister in the original hearing got things so wrong that they want someone else, or he is unavailable "Jammed", or because they want a more senior Barrister for the appeal, sometimes a QC. But if it is not to get more senior counsel then almost invariably the Barrister who does the appeal will also do the rehearing, regardless who dd the original. I believe we can rule out the senior Barrister theory here because Montie was far far from being anything other than a junior.
That then brings us to the question of the 50 pound cheque he had on hm when his body was found in the Thames. In the 1880's Barrister's briefs arrived in chambers with the cheque for the retainer attached, this retainer consisted of an agreed amount [usually agreed between the Barrister's Clerk and the instructing Solicitor] for the costs to prepare the case and the fee for the first day, or expected number of days, of hearing. If he hadn't appeared on the orginal hearing he would have got a brief fee for the stated case and a refresher for 1 December.
When hearings go longer than expected it was normal for the "refresher" [the fee for the additional day] to be paid on the day.
So it is likely that Druitt would have received a brief fee when the brief arrived. A further brief fee when he was briefed to appear on the appeal, or stated case and then when on 1 December the matter came on for rehearing he would have been paid a refresher. In 1888 a daily fee for junior counsel would be between about 25 and 200 pounds depending on the experience of the Barrister and the complexity of the case.
I admit to a real lack of knowledge as to travel in 1888 England but I presume the rehearing would have taken place back in Christchurch, Hampshire, does this at all explain the ticket Druitt had on him from Hammersmith to Charing Cross? Though I do note that the ticket is described as a "Second-half return ticket" does that mean it was a season ticket for the second half of the year, or is it the return half of the ticket?
However the Times (London) Thursday, 29 November 1888 reports on what we have always thought may have been his last Court case.
But was it.
This was what is called a stated case. I don't want to boar anyone with a law lecture but a "Stated Case" is a sort of mini-appeal on a discrete issue, in this case the issue appears to be if the two tenants could both claim rights as they were joint tenants of the property. We know that Monte prevailed in the case, and that seems to be where we have all left it. The original case was heard by a Barrister, I imagine sitting as what is referred to in the United Kingdom as a Recorder dealing with more basic cases.
However there is more, the last sentence of the Times report states:
The Case sent to be amended, will, his Lordship said, be taken on Saturday.
This simply means that having decided that both Mr Hakes, being eligible could now have their substantive applications heard, and they would be heard on Saturday 1 December. Back before the person who had originally heard it, as a general rule.
Now it is not always the case that the same Barrister appears on both the original hearing and the "appeal". However if it isn't it usually because either the Barrister in the original hearing got things so wrong that they want someone else, or he is unavailable "Jammed", or because they want a more senior Barrister for the appeal, sometimes a QC. But if it is not to get more senior counsel then almost invariably the Barrister who does the appeal will also do the rehearing, regardless who dd the original. I believe we can rule out the senior Barrister theory here because Montie was far far from being anything other than a junior.
That then brings us to the question of the 50 pound cheque he had on hm when his body was found in the Thames. In the 1880's Barrister's briefs arrived in chambers with the cheque for the retainer attached, this retainer consisted of an agreed amount [usually agreed between the Barrister's Clerk and the instructing Solicitor] for the costs to prepare the case and the fee for the first day, or expected number of days, of hearing. If he hadn't appeared on the orginal hearing he would have got a brief fee for the stated case and a refresher for 1 December.
When hearings go longer than expected it was normal for the "refresher" [the fee for the additional day] to be paid on the day.
So it is likely that Druitt would have received a brief fee when the brief arrived. A further brief fee when he was briefed to appear on the appeal, or stated case and then when on 1 December the matter came on for rehearing he would have been paid a refresher. In 1888 a daily fee for junior counsel would be between about 25 and 200 pounds depending on the experience of the Barrister and the complexity of the case.
I admit to a real lack of knowledge as to travel in 1888 England but I presume the rehearing would have taken place back in Christchurch, Hampshire, does this at all explain the ticket Druitt had on him from Hammersmith to Charing Cross? Though I do note that the ticket is described as a "Second-half return ticket" does that mean it was a season ticket for the second half of the year, or is it the return half of the ticket?
Comment