The Gazette 1910-11

APRIL, 1911 ]

the Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

209

defended, and there was no appearance for the respondent. A decree was granted, and evidence having been given that the respon dent had considerable property of her own, ' an Order was made that the respondent should pay the petitioner's costs of the proceedings. DONEGAL SPRING ASSIZES, 1911. (Before Holmes L.J.)- Patrick Benar and H. T. Gallagher v. The Stranorlar District Council. March 16, 1911.— Labourers (Ireland) Acts and Orders—Costs of furnishing title to District Council—Labourers (Ireland) Order, 1910. APPEAL by the defendants against decree granted by His Honor Judge Cooke, K.C., for the fee of two guineas claimed under the Labourers (Ireland) Order, 1909, in respect of furnishing, prior to the date of the Labourers (Ireland) Order, 1910, title upon behalf of a judicial tenant from year to year, portion of whose holding had been acquired by the District Council under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts. Held on appeal, affirming the decree granted by the County Court Judge, that the Labourers (Ireland) Order, 1910, is not retrospective in effect, and', accordingly, that it does not apply to the costs for work done prior to its date. Holmes L.J., in affirming the decree, said :—I affirm the decree of the County Court Judge in this case. The Order of 1909 allowing a Solicitor for a lessee or owner to exercise his option and take two guineas in- lieu of his taxed costs was in force at the date at which Mr. Gallagher brought his process, and is still in force. Under that Order Mr. Gallagher exercised his option, as he was entitled to do, provided Patrick Benar was a lessee at the time the work was done, as he admittedly was under the decision of Panes C.B. in Elliott v. Stranorlar R. D. C. That being so, Mr. Gallagher was entitled, beyond question, to his two guineas when he issued his process, and the Council's sole contention is that the Order of 1910 relates back so as to make Patrick Benar an occupier and not a lessee from the very beginning of the proceedings. This Order has no such

effect. affect cases in which proceedings have been taken before its issue and which are pending, and the right to succeed here depends on the right to succeed at the time the proceedings were begun. I am also of opinion that an Order of this sort made under the Labourers Acts cannot affect the legal status or the rights of the parties retrospectively whatever effect it may have upon procedure, and that this Order does not operate to convert Patrick Benar from a lessee into an occupier for the purpose of depriving his Solicitor of the two guineas fee to which he is entitled. NOTE.—The decision of the County Court Judge in above case appeared in GAZETTE of November, 1910. It cannot retrospectively COURT OF APPEAL (ENGLAND). (Before Cozens-Hardy M.R.,Fletcher Moulton and Buckley L.JJ.) Simmons v. Liberal Opinion (Lim.) ; Re Dunn. Feb. 22, 1911.— Solicitor—Retainer to conduct defence to an action—Company—Non registration — Implied warranty of existence of authority—Liability of Solicitor to pay plaintiff's costs. THIS was an appeal from Darling J. The matter arose out of an action of Simmons v. Liberal Opinion (Limited). The plaintiff obtained a verdict for £5,000 damages, and judgment for this amount was entered against Liberal Opinion (Limited). At the conclusion of the trial application was made on behalf of the plaintiff that the Solicitors for the defendants, Messrs. Dunn, Baker and Co. should be asked to show cause why they should not be made personally respon sible for the plaintiff's costs, on the ground that the defendants were not a limited company, as stated in the pleadings, and that, therefore, Messrs. Dunn, Baker and Co. had improperly accepted instructions to appear for them in that capacity. Darling J., came to the conclusion that Mr. Dunn had authority to act for certain defendants who carried on business under the style of Liberal Opinion (Limited), and it, therefore, could not be said that he had no clients. The application therefore failed, each party to pay their own costs. The plaintiff appealed.