The Gazette 1909-10

103

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

APRIL, 1910]

Limerick, April 19th.—Co. Limerick and Co. Tipperary (part of). Clonmel, April 21st.—Co. Waterford and Co., Tipperary (part of). Ennis, April 26th.—Co. Clare (part of). Cork, April 28th.—Co. Cork (part of). Dublin, May 5th.—Leinster (part of). Killarney, May 10th.—Co. Kerry (part of). Dingle, May 12th.—Co. Kerry (part of). Dublin, May 17th.—Leinster (part of). Solicitors' Apprentices' Debating Society, Session 1910. PROGRAMME FOR EASTER AND TRINITY SITTINGS, 1910. Meetings to be held at Eight o'.clock, p.m., in the Hall of the Incorporated Law Society, Four Courts, Dublin. EASTER SITTINGS. April 18th.—Debate—" That the Future Interests of Ireland depend on the Development of her Agricultural resources." April 25th.—Legal Debate.—That the Case of Cooke v. Midland Great Western Rail way of Ireland (1909), A.C. 229, was wrongly decided." May 2nd.—Debate.—" That the action of the House of Lords in rejecting the Budget was unconstitutional." May 9th.—Impromptu Speeches. May 16th.—Legal Debate.—That the Dedsion of the House of Lords in the Case of O'Reilly v. McCall (1910), 2 J.R. 42, was wrong." TRINITY SITTINGS. June 6th.—Debate.—" That Censorship of Literature is essential for the moral welfare of the Community." June 13th.—Impromptu Speeches. (Candidates for Offices for Session 1910 1911 to be nominated). June 20th.—Debate.—" That the Socialistic- Tendency of the present day 'is to be deplored." June 27th.—Essay Night. (Result of Election of Officers for the Session 1910-1911 to be declared).

they are not imposed as a punishment on the party who pays them, nor given as a bonus to the party who receives them. Therefore, if the extent of the damnification can be found out, the extent to which costs ought to be allowed is also ascertained." If, in the face of the evidence which the learned County Court Judge accepted, the defendant in the present action were ordered to pay costs, those costs would be given as a bonus to the party who received them. That seemed contrary both to justice and common sense. The decision in Harold v. Smith was fifty years old, and his Lordship was not prepared to depart from it, and on that ground he thought the appeal must fail. Then came a further and difficult point under Section 5 of the Attorneys and Solicitors Remuneration Act, 1870. There was no express evidence whether the agreement in the present case was in writing or not ; but assuming that it was a parol agreement, it was said on behalf of the plaintiff that Section 5 only applied to an agreement in writing. It is apparent that the proviso at the end of Section 5, though not purely declaratory, was an application of the settled common law principle to the particular facts, and was absolutely necessary, having regard to the first part of Section 5. In the view of .the Court below that proviso applied not merely to an agreement in writing but to any agreement by parol of which, as the Court of Appeal had held in Clare v. Joseph, the client could take advantage, and his Lordship was not prepared to say, although he felt more difficulty about it than his brethren, that that view was wrong. On the Common Law point, therefore, his Lordship thought that the defendant was right, and he was not prepared to say that he was not right on the other point also, so on both grounds the appeal must be dismissed. The Lord Justices also delivered judgments dismissing the appeal. (Reported The Times Law Reports, Vol. xxvi., page 321). Irish Land Commission. THE following Sittings of the Court of the Land Commission for hearing Appeals .have been provisionally arranged :— Dublin, April 15th.—Leinster (part of)