The Gazette 1907-8

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

AUG., 1907]

43,

•of a claim which is adverse to other benefi ciaries, and the applicant takes advantage of the procedure by originating summons to get determined a question which, but for that pro cedure, would properly form the subject of an action and fall within the term " litigation," the Court will order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs. Reported in T.L.R., Vol. xxin., p. 692. Solicitors' Benevolent Association. THE Directors met on the 3rd July, Mr.' Fry, J.P., in the chair, and twelve other Directors being present. The Secretary reported having received in annual subscriptions since last meeting the sum of ^21, making a total of annual subscriptions received since the ist January of ^4S4 '3^ The -following grants were made: — ^10 to the son of a solicitor; ^10 to the widow of a solicitor ; ^£10 to the daughter of a solicitor ; and j£s to the daughter of a solicitor. A sum ios., half year's " Brooke " annuity, was also paid to the " Brooke" annuitant. The Directors held a special meeting on the 17th July, Mr. Fry, J.P., presiding, and seven teen other directors being present. The Secretary reported having received a life sub scription of J^ 10 10.9. from Mr. George Carr Lett, and a donation of ^5 5.?. from Mr. W. Milward Jones. The Directors made the following grants:— £10 to the sister of a solicitor, and .£10 to the daughter of a solicitor. The scrutineers' report as to the result of the voting for the election of a " James Weir " annuitant of ^30 was submitted, and candidate No. 3 on the voting paper—an old solicitor and member of the Association — having received the highest number of votes, was declared elected. The following solicitors joined the Associa tion during the month of July :— George Carr Lett, Dublin. P. V. C. Murtagh, Athlone. Henry J. Walker, Athlone. The meetings of the Directors for the re mainder of the year are as follows:— October 3oth. November 27th. December 4th and i ith. Solicitors desirous of becoming members of the Association can obtain all information

In such a case, where counsel, instead of settling a reply, advises an alternative course which proves more satisfactory, the costs of the case for counsel ought to be allowed. The costs of registering Us pendens against twenty defendants after an order on further consideration allowed. A fee for instructions for brief on further consideration cannot be allowed on taxation between party and party when there has been a primary hearing. (Appendix S., Part I., item 73). Per HOLMES, L.J.—Where a Taxing Master has, in the exercise of his discretion, allowed certain sums for items in a bill of costs, a court of appellate jurisdiction ought not to interfere unless the Taxing Master has acted on an erroneous principle, or is mistaken as to the facts upon which the exercise of his discre tion is based. As to (i) Instructions for brief; (2) costs of a third counsel; (3) fee for advice of proofs ;, (4) allowance for schedule for the Chief Clerk ; (5) wide line draft statement of claim for settle ment by senior counsel ; (6) costs of a sur veyor; (7) attendances both at Record Office and Probate Office to obtain a copy of a will, and (8) copies of documents sent to counsel with instructions to settle pleadings, the Court, being of opinion that the Taxing Master knew and appreciated the difficulty and magnitude of the case, refused to vary the sums allowed by him. Reported in I.L.T.R., Vol. XLI., p. 128. July 10, 1907— Practice—Costs—Trustee and cestui que tmsl—Rulesfor guidance of Court. WHERE trustees apply by originating summons to the Court to construe an instrument for their guidance, and in order to ascertain the in terests of the beneficiaries or to have deter mined some question arising in the administra tion of the trust, the costs are incurred for the benefit of the estate, and the Court will, as a general rule, direct them to be taxed as between solicitor and client and paid out of the estate. Again, where the -application is of the same character, but is made by some of the benefi ciaries, and not by the trustees, because such a course is considered more convenient, the same rule as to costs applies. But where the application is made by a beneficiary in respect CHANCERY DIVISION (ENGLAND). (Before Kekewich, J.) In re Buckton ; Buckton v. Bucklon.