The Gazette 1909-10

APRIL, 7910]

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

101

(Ireland) Act, 1891, and were also entitled, as regards the plot purchased from Callan, to fair remuneration for such work as was necessarily done by them in consequence of the plot purchased from Callan being part only of the land of which Callan was registered owner, and were also entitled, as regards the plot purchased from Long, to fair remunera tion for such work as was necessarily done by them in consequence not merely of the fact that the plot purchased from Long was part only of the land of which Long was registered owner, but also of the fact that Long's land was registered subject to equities that had to be discharged as regards the plot purchased by the council, and also of the further fact that Long's farm was subject to a charge ihat had to be redeemed so far as it related to the plot purchased by the council. The matter now came before the Court on motion on notice by Messrs. Wilson & Simms that the taxation should be reviewed as to the items that the Taxing Master had disallowed, and that such items should be reinstated, or that it should be declared, that the Master had jurisdiction to allow such items under Schedule II. of the Solicitors Remuneration Act, 188], and the General Orders, and that the bill should be referred back to the Master with a direction that such items should be taxed according to said Schedule and General Orders. Madden, J.—The guinea fee does not apply to either Callan or Long's case, in each of which there was an apportionment of the terminable annuity, whilst in Long's case there was further work arising out of the facts that Long's land had been registered subject to equities and afterwards was burdened with a charge. In my opinion neither of these sales are " provided for " within the meaning of s. (/) of the scale of costs and fees to be allowed solicitors in proceedings under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, so I must send the bill back to the Taxing Master with a direction that this scale of fees is not applicable to any part of it, and that the costs, including those of the - attempted purchase from Marshall, must- be- taxed in accordance with the schedule -of fees in proceedings before- the Land Judge. The county council have failed in their contention ; Messrs. Wilson "& Simms, in asking that. they', should be

declared entitled to such fees as are payable under Schedule II. of the Solicitors Remuneration Act and the several orders, have asked for more than they can get, so each side must abide their own costs. (Reported Irish Law Times Reports, Vol. xliv., page 62). KING'S BENCH DIVISION ^ENGLAND). (Before Pickford,. J.) ,, V. ... Medley v. The London United ••Tramways (Limited) and'.the,... London - G'eneral Omnibus (Limited), -.•••.•• ..-.•, •;•.•; Feb. 23, 1910.— Two Defendants separately represented—Plaintiff successfill against one defendant—Costs payable to 'success ful defendant recoverable from unsuccess ful defendant. ' •'"•'•'•'• - The Plaintiff, claimed damages for p.erso.nal injuries against two sets of defendants who were separately represented. It appeared that the. plaintiff", Mr. Charley Medley, a wheelwright, of Haven Lane, Baling, was, on November 23, 1908, a passenger on a motor-omnibus of'the London General Omnibus Company going along High Street, Acton, and when he was about to alight he was struck by the near-side hind wheel, which suddenly came off, with the result that his left leg and foot'were'pinned between the wheel and the step. In High Street, Acton, the London United Tramways have tramway lines and are responsible for the proper repair and the 'upkeep of the lines: and of the adjoining roadway -and' itraefc.- The plaintiff alleged that the lines and track' or adjoining roadway were in a;'negligent state of disrepair, and in such a condition, as to constitute a nuisance, with-'the-•result that the wheel of the motor-omnibus was wrenched off or loosened so that it came* off,1 The plaintiff also alleged that'the London! General Omnibus Company were •negligent' in using an omnibus with a defective wheclv and in not avoiding a part of the' roadway that was in disrepair. Both defendant GofrK panics denied all liability. The plaintiff's* out-of-pocket expenses were about £100, and his ability to do his work had been impaired; The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £4'5Q"against the London "General Omnibus' Company only, and they found thatr.tne accident was not caused" byr negligeneeTof the tramway company..: :. ...: , ;\ira