The Gazette 1907-8

JULY, 1907]

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

33

sum of ^35 with costs, but that the plaintiff should abide his own costs of the abortive trial before the Hon. Mr. Justice Wright, and of the trial before the Right Hon. Mr. Justice Madden, and of this argument, the Court being of opinion that the issues of fraud were irrelevant to the cause of action in contract, and that the costs of the trial were altogether largely attributable to such issues." Held, that the plaintiff was, by the above order, only deprived of the costs of the actual trials, and was entitled to all costs properly and necessarily incurred by him in preparing for and getting ready for the trials ; Held also, that the defendant was entitled to be refunded by the plaintiff ^iz I2J., paid by the defendant to the special jury on the second trial, but that the proper time for applying for such refund was at the hearing of the new trial motion, and that, therefore, he should not be allowed the costs of a motion subse quently instituted on payment of the amount. Reported in I.L.T.R., Vol. XLI., page 92. NOTE.—On Appeal by defendant, the Court of Appeal, consisting of Walker, C., Fitzgibbon and Holmes, L.JJ., without calling on coun sel for respondent, dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the order of the K.B.D. (Before Palles, L.C.B., and Madden, J.) Mellon v. Tickell. May i o, 1907.— Practice — Costs — Taxation of Costs—Two counsel appearingfor party before Commission to take evidence— Counsel appear ing on taxation of a bill of costs. THERE is no general rule that the Taxing Master should only allow the fee of a single counsel on behalf of a party before a Commis sion appointed to take the evidence of a witness. The matter is entirely in the discretion of the Taxing Master. The fee of a counsel appearing on the tax ation of a bill of costs can only be allowed in a case where the Taxing Master certifies that some question of principle was involved. Palles, L.C.B., in delivering the judgment of the Court said, "As regards the first item here it is impossible to say that as a general rule only

Obituary. MR. John Philip Kavanagh, Solicitor, died on the 4th June, 1907, at his residence, 5 Cowper Road, Dublin. Mr. Kavanagh served his apprenticeship to the late Mr. John E. Roach, of Dublin, was admitted in HilaryTerm. 1854, and practised in the City of Dublin. For some years he had retired from practice. Mr. John Henry Russell, Solicitor, died on the 1 8th June, 1907, at his residence, Prospect Villa, Warrenpoint. Mr. Russell served his apprenticeship to the late Mr. Thomas Carey, of Newy, was admitted in Trinity Sittings, 1894, and practised in Newry in partnership with the late Mr. T. B. Sheridan; and after the death of Mr. Sheridan he continued to practise under the title of Messrs. Sherdian and Russell. Resent Decisions affecting Solicitors. (Notes ofdecisions, whether in reported or unreported cases, of interest to Solicitors are invited from Members.) KINCS'S BENCH DIVISION. (Before Madden, Boyd, and Dodd, JJ.) Hinson v. Buchanan. April 25, 1907.— Practice—Costs —Review of taxation—Costs of trial—Recovery #/" money paid—Special jury. THIS was an appeal from the Taxing Master. The plaintiff brought an action for the return of the price of a motor tricycle, sold to him by the defendant, on the ground that certain statements of the defendant forming part of the contract were untrue, and also on the ground of fraud. The case was first tried before a common jury, and resulted in a dis agreement. It was again tried before a special jury demanded by the plaintiff, and the jury found in favour of the defendant. On a new trial motion the Divisional Court held that, apart from any fraudulent intention on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff was en titled, by reason of the untrue statements of the defendant, to reject the motor tricycle, and the Court ordered " that the verdict and judgment be entered for the plaintiff for the