FIRESTONE PLANTATIONS COMPANY, by & thru its Manager, HARRY W. HERMLING, Informant/Appellant, v. HIS HONOUR E. S. KOROMA, Presiding Judge, People’s Fourth Judicial Circuit, May Term, A. D. 1981, and v. COLLINS TOE et. al., Respondents/Appellees.

INFORMATION PROCEEDINGS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY.

Heard: April 5, 1984. Decided: May 10, 1984.

1. When a party raises several contentions in the pleading, and during argument, but only prays for relief for one of the several contentions, the Court will conclude that all other points of contention have been waived by implication.

2. The Supreme Court will not act, by way of a bill of information, on a matter over which the trial court has original jurisdiction.

Pursuant to a writ of prohibition filed by informant/appellant, the Supreme Court sent a mandate to the judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Maryland Court, to enforce the ruling of the hearing officer. Each counsel prepared and taxed a bill of costs in two different amounts, the informant for $6,941.00 and the co­ respondents for $14,255.95. Interestingly, the trial judge taxed and approved the same bill of costs for$10,619.00, thus resulting in three separate amounts. The informant paid to the sheriff the amount of$10,619.00, as taxed and approved by the trial judge. Subsequently, filed a bill of information in the Supreme Court charging the co-respondent judge with alleged irregularities during the enforcement of the mandate.

In the meantime, the informant applied to the trial court for a refund, or $3,200.00 of the $10,619.00 paid on the bill of costs, due to the fact that one of the corespondents in whose interest that portion of the bill was paid had withdrawn from the action. The trial judge denied the application on the ground that the information was sub judice before the Supreme Court. Whereupon, informant filed a motion in the Supreme Court to drop the correspondent as a party to the action. The Supreme Court consolidated both the bill of information and the motion during argument. The information was denied.

John A. Dennis appeared for informant. No one appeared for respondents

MR. JUSTICE YANGBE delivered the opinion of the court

The records in this case evince that a mandate was sent from this Court to the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Maryland County, to enforce the ruling of the hearing officer of the Ministry of Labour whose office is located in that county. A bill of costs was prepared, taxed by counsels of the respective parties for different amounts and approved by the trial judge for yet another amount, resulting in three separate amounts on the bill. The approval date noted thereon by the judge is September 7, 1983. A check for the amount approved by court (that is, $10,619.00) was offered by informant and accepted by the sheriff in satisfaction of the judgment. Thereafter, a bill of information was filed in this Court charging the respondent judge with alleged irregularities commit­ ted by him during the enforcement proceedings. Subsequently, Daniel Bortue, one of the respondents, addressed a letter to the respondent judge, a portion of which is as follows:

“Please be informed that I withdrew myself from the court action against the company the moment they agreed to reinstate me in July 1979.Since then I was honorably retired by the company on December 1st 1982.

Therefore the money compensation I understand the company has paid to me through the court should be returned to the Company. All I am entitled to is my monthly retirement income.”

Predicated upon this letter, the informant applied to the trial judge to order the sheriff to refund the sum of$3,200.00 which was the share of co-respondent Daniel Bortue from the $10,619.00. The judge refused to entertain the application on the ground that the informant, having already complained to the Supreme Court, the case is sub judice in the Supreme Court for a hearing and ruling on irregularities purportedly committed by him during the enforcement of the Court’s mandate. In consequence of the refusal of the co-respondent judge to entertain the application, a motion to drop co-respondent Bortue was filed in this Court.

During the argument in this case we consolidated the information and the motion filed by the informant to drop co­ respondent Bortue. Civil Procedure Law, Rev. Code 1: 6.3.

The respondents have filed returns contending in essence that the informant has waived its rights to contest any item on the bill of costs, because it had already taxed the bill. As we have stated supra, the bill of costs shows that informant taxed it for $6,941.00 and the corespondents taxed same for $14,255.94, the letter of Daniel Bortue is subsequent to the date of the bill of costs. Therefore, waiver will not apply. BALLENTINE’S LAW DICTIONARY, at 1356.

There were several issues raised in the information, but at the conclusion of the argument, informant’s counsel prayed to the effect that only the $3,200.00 be deducted from the $10,619.00 and returned to the informants, thus waiving the other points of contentions by implication. Hence, we will only address the question of the deduction of the $3,200.00 from the $10,619.00 raised in the motion.

It is clear, and we wish to observe in passing, that the amounts included in the bill of costs representing expenses incurred by corespondents are subsequent to the ruling of the hearing officer in Maryland County and, therefore, are not part of the costs, nor was it contemplated by the ruling which the trial judge sought to enforce as per the mandate of this Court. It is worthy to mention that it was brought out during the argument before us, that the costs of court for the Supreme Court were paid by the informant, and this was confirmed by the marshal of this Court. Hence, the fees claimed by co-respondents as expenses incurred by them subsequent to the ruling that was being enforced were not the costs of the Supreme Court, which were paid before the preparation of the bill of costs of the court below.

The informant has argued that this Court should order the court below to only refund the $3,200.00, the share of co­ respondent Bortue in the bill of costs of the circuit court. Since indeed an application was made to the respondent judge for the refund of said amount, and the judge has not acted, we have no original jurisdiction over this phase of the matter, nor can it logically be said that the judge acted irregularly by not ordering the return of said amount to the informant so as to warrant these proceedings. Consequently, the information is denied. The respondent judge is ordered to immediately resume jurisdiction in the case and continue to enforce the mandate in this case in accordance with law and accepted procedure.

Costs of these proceedings are ruled against the informant.

And it is so ordered.

Information denied.

File Type: pdf
Categories: 1984