The Gazette 1914-15

69

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

DECEMBER, 19 14]

had been proved, and if it were it would override the ordinary incidents of law so far as that case was concerned. In the present case no such custom has been proved. The photographer knew that he was dealing with the Solicitor as an agent, and the mere fact that he chose to debit the agent in his books did not throw upon him any liability to pay. The decision of the County Court' Judge was right, and the appeal must be dismissed. Mr. Justice Shearman concurred. (Reported The Times Law Reports, Vol. XXXI., p 40.) COURT OF APPEAL (ENGLAND). (Before Buckley, Phillimore and Pickford, LJJ.) Softlaw v. Morgan. November 9, 1914.— Moratorium—Contract— Date of making — Applicability of moratorium—Postponement of Payments Act, 1914 (4 and 5 George V., c. 11). THE moratorium proclaimed under the Postponement of Payments Act, 1914, does not extend to contracts made after August 4, 1914. The defendant here appealed from an order made by Mr. Justice Scrutton. The action was begun by a specially indorsed writ claiming money due from the defendant to the plaintiff under two contracts made after August 4, 1914. The question was whether the moratorium applied to contracts made after August 4. On an application under Order 14 Mr. Justice Scrutton held that the moratorium did not apply to such contracts, and ordered final judgment to be entered for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed. The Court dismissed the appeal. Lord Justice Buckley said that the order of Mr. Justice Scrutton was right. By the Postponement of Payments Act, 1914, His Majesty had power by proclamation to authorise the postponement of any payment in pursuance of any contract to such extent, for such time and subject to such conditions or other provisions as might be specified in the Proclamation. By a Proclamation of

The plaintiff, who was a photographer, brought an action against the defendants, a firm of Solicitors, to recover £5 17s., the price of photographs taken by him on the instructions of a member of the defendants' firm in connection with a charge of man slaughter in which the defendants were acting for the accused person. It was proved at the trial that when the photographs were ordered the plaintiff knew that the defendants were Solicitors and that the photographs were wanted for the trial. It was also proved that in ordering the photographs the Solicitor said, " Make the charges as low as you can, for the fellow is only a poor chap." At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case the County Court Judge held that the defendants were only acting as agents for their client, and were not responsible for the cost of the photographs. The plaintiff appealed. The Court, without calling on Counsel for the' defendants, dismissed the appeal. Mr. Justice Coleridge, in giving judgment, said that there was no question that the plaintiff knew that the defendants were Solicitors acting on behalf of a client, and that being so, apart from any other considera tions, they would be agents acting on behalf of a principal. Prima facie, in such a contract the person supplying the goods would have to have recourse to the principal and not the agent. It was said, however, that in the present case the mere fact that the Solicitor • gave the order made him responsible. In his Lordship's opinion that was not the case. There were exceptional cases in which, although one party to a contract knew that the other was a Solicitor, yet'the Solicitor was personally responsible. For instance, in cash transactions where it was to be assumed that the Solicitor had no authority to pledge the credit of his client. The present trans action was not a cash transaction in that sense, although no doubt an action would lie for the price of the goods as soon as they were delivered. Another case in which the Solicitor might be personally responsible was where a custom would be proved that it should be so. It was for the Judge to say in o,ny particular case whether such a custom