The court found that the taxing officer made no fundamental error of principle in arriving at its decision, thus, the correct mode of taxation was employed.
Therefore, the court found no error in the decision of the judge, thus, the appeal failed.
The cross appeal on the other hand was based on ground that the trail judge erred in setting aside the award of 6% interest which was automatic on the sum of costs awarded, and that he erred when he declined to uphold the award by the taxing officer.
Concerning the first ground, the court found that the purported variation of the order by inclusion of interest was unlawful, as it was not included in the certificate of taxation. Thus, the learned judge rightly exercised award of interest in exclusion of the interest at 6%.
With regard to the second ground, it was found that the judge erred in calculation of the amount of one-third thereby awarding less amount.
In the result, the cross-appeal was allowed in part, with costs to the advocate, while the appeal was dismissed.