PERERA v. WHITE.

D. C., Colombo, 14,093.

Advocate and client-Retainer and fee-Application to Supreme Court to apportion counsel to advise applicant in conduct of his case-Refusal of counsel to take up a case,

A retainer given to an advocate in a case means that he is to hold himself ready to accept a brief with a fee.

If the retainer is not followed by a brief and fee, the counsel is at liberty to appear on the other side upon retainer and fee.

An advocate cannot decline a fee capriciously.

If a party to a litigation should retain the whole roll of advocates, so as to leave his opponent without the advice and aid of counsel, it would amount to a public scandal, and the Supreme Court would feel justified in interfering to apportion advocates to, such party.

But where a plaintiff has retained several advocates, and there are other members of the bar of standing and position who have not been applied to by the defendant,

Held, on motion made by the defendant to apportion counsel to advise him in his defence, that the Supreme Court had no reason to interfere.

ON the 10th October, 1900, Elliott appeared for the defendant, Mr. Herbert White, the Acting Mayor and Chairman of the Municipal Council of Colombo, against whom an action for alleged libel had been brought by Mr. Charles Perera, a Member of the Municipal Council of Colombo, and moved the Supreme Court, in the circumstances set forth in a petition of the defendant supported by an affidavit of his proctor, to apportion to the defendant advocates to advise him in his defence in the said case.

It appeared that the plaintiff's action was for the recovery of Rs. 30,000 as damages for libel said to be contained in certain memoranda written by the defendant in reference to matters connected with the Municipal Council of Colombo, of which the

petitioner was Acting Chairman; that summons had been served on him to appear before the District Court of Colombo and answer the plaint on the 10th October, 1900; that the petitioner had appointed the firm of Messrs. Julius & Creasy, Proctors, to act for him in the said action, and had instructed them to engage advocates of merit and experience to advise, plead for, and support him in his defence to the said action; that Mr. Frank Liesching, a partner of the firm of Julius & Creasy, sought to engage the services of the Acting Attorney-General, Mr. H. L. Wendt, on behalf of the petitioner, but was informed that as a Law Officer of the Crown he thought it best not to act for either plaintiff or defendant, and that he had already informed the plaintiff so; that in view of the above expression of opinion on the part of the Attorney-General, Mr. Liesching did not think it advisable " to " apply to any of the Crown Counsel, but sought to engage the " services of Advocates J. R. Weinman, Walter Pereira, B.W. Bawa, " and H. J. C. Pereira, but they, one and all, informed me (Mr. Liesching averred in his affidavit) " that they had been " consulted as to the above action by the said Charles Perera, and " did not think that under these circumstances they could act for " the said Herbert White; that the plaint in the said action has been " settled by Advocates T. Sampayo and James van Langenberg, " and Advocates It. H. Morgan, A. de A. Seneviratne, James Peris, " and H. Jayawardena are all Members of the Colombo Municipal " Council, and they feel that they cannot under the circumstances " fittingly act as counsel for either party, especially as it may be " necessary to call upon one or more of them to give evidence in " this action. The advocates named or referred to above are, 1 " believe, all those now regularly practising in the Colombo Courts " on their civil side, who are generally considered leading members " of the bar. I verily believe that if the help of one or more of " the said advocates consulted by the said Charles Perera is not " apportioned to the said Herbert White, the said Herbert White