The Gazette 1914-15

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

MAY, 1914]

could be made a rule of Court. Holdsworth v. Wilson (4. B. and S., 1). Apart from agree ment, that rule did not apply where the award was that of an inferior Court. The rule did not apply here because the taxing master had no jurisdiction to tax " expenses." The Court in the absence of statutory provision had no power to remedy the defect by sending the order back to the Referee for him to assess the amount of the expenses. The motion must, therefore, be dismissed with costs. (From The Times of 30th March. 1914.)

:, ,: Intermediate Examination. THE July Intermediate Examination will be held on'Thursday, 2nd July. Notices from apprentices intending to present themselves for :the examination should be lodged on or before Thursday, 18th June. ' KING'.S BENCH DIVISION (ENGLAND). ' • (Before Mr. Justice Scrutton.) SIMPSON r. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND 1 REVENUE. Appeal to Referee under Finance Act Term " -expenses " .distinguished from " costs." Mr. W. Finlay moved on behalf of the Com missioners of Inland Revenue for an order of a Referee to be made a rule of the High Court under Section 33 (3) of the Finance (1909-10) Act. 1910. That sub-section provides that where there is an appeal to a Referee under Section 33 the Referee may, if he thinks fit, order that any expenses incurred by the Commissioners be paid by the appellant. In this case the Referee made such an order' following the words of the statute ; he did not assess the amount of the expenses to be paid. Mr. Alien, for the appellant, contended that the order was bad for uncertainty. There was no machinery by which the amount of the " expenses " could be ascertained apart from a finding of a Referee. Mr. Justice Scrutton held that the motion must fail. " Expenses " was not in England a term of legal art as it was in Scotland ; it was a vague general term, possibly here used by Parliament because proceedings before a Referee under the section were treated as very informal. If costs had been the word used the order would not be bad, because ' ' costs " could be ascertained by taxation by the taxing master, a ministerial and not a judicial officer. This was the principle applied to the award of an arbitrator where either by statute or the terms of submission the award Recent Decisions affecting Solicitors. (Notes of decisions, whether in reported or unreported cases, of interest to Solicitors, are invited from Members.)

RECORDER (DUBLIN)—APPEAL. (Before Dodd, J.) BULL v. BOWLES AND FRENCH.

May 13, 1913.— Sheriffs " Execution " of writ of fi. fa. " Withdrawal " Fees — Or. LXV., Rr. 91 and 92 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (Ireland), 1905. In an action for fees brought by a sheriff against the Solicitors for the execution creditor the plaintiff must establish by legal evidence (1) that there was in fact an " execution " of the writ of fi. fa. ; and (2) if there has been a " withdrawal " that the same took place with the authority of Hie, defendants. A return of 'mtlla bona is not necessarily inconsistent with an " execution" having taken place within the meaning of the Order, and evidence is admissible to rebut the pre– sumption which arises from s-uch a return. Appeal from a decree dated April 7, 1913, of the Right Hon. the Recorder of Dublin in favour of the plaintiff, who is the Sub,- Sheriff of the King's and Queen's Counties, for the sum of one pound, being the balance of fees for work done and money paid by the plaintiff for the defendants in connection with the execution of a fi. fa. in the case of MacNeill v. Crennan, together with the sum of five shillings for costs. It appeared that upon March 8, 1912, the defendants, who are a firm of Solicitors practising in the City of Dublin, acting upon behalf of their clients, James MacNeill & Son, Ltd., Glasgow, obtained a judgment of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, King's Bench Division, for the sum of £17 6s. lid., together with the