The Gazette 1940-44

purported to be inserted by a solicitor who was stated to be travelling to America, and offered to undertake commissions on behalf of solicitors. The other advertisement was inserted by a solicitor offering to undertake work for profession al correspondents. The Council, by resolution, expressed its disapproval of advertisements of this nature and it was ordered that the view of the Council should be published in the Society's Gazette. Proceedings Against a Solicitor. THE Secretary was directed to instruct counsel to apply to the Chief Justice to have the name of a solicitor struck off the roll on the ground that he had been convicted of a criminal offence. Apprentice's Applications. A NUMBER of applications from apprentices were considered and dealt with. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SOLICITORS. BY order of the Chief Justice, dated llth February, 1944, made on a report from the Statutory Committee, it was ordered that the name of Percy J. MacGrath be struck off the roll of solicitors in Eire on the ground of professional misconduct. Mr. MacGrath formerly practised at 15, Kildare Street. By order of the Chief Justice, dated llth February, 1944, made on an, application by the Society, it was ordered that the name of Seamus S. Byrne be struck off the roll of solicitors in Eire on the ground that he had been convicted of a criminal offence. Mr. Byrne formerly practised at Mohill, Co. Leitrim. By order of the Chief Justice, dated llth February, 1944, made on an application by the Society, it was ordered that the name of John Joseph Kennedy be struck off the roll of solicitors in Eire on the ground of his conviction of a criminal offence. Mr. Kennedy formerly prac tised at 31, Wicklow Street, Dublin. CURRENT TOPICS. Appeal from refusal to grant adjournment. BY Section 24 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877, the Court of Appeal (now the Supreme Court) was given jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from any judgment or order of the High Court or any judges or judge thereof. Section 37 of the- Courts of Justice Act, 1936, gives a right of appeal to the High Court, subject

to certain exceptions, from every judgment or order of the Circuit Court. An appeal lies in all cases other than in criminal cases from any decision of a District Justice to the Circuit Court under Section 84 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924. On appeals, however, on matters of prac tice which are within the discretion of a judge the Appellate Tribunal will, in general, refuse to interfere. The point, which is of interest to solicitors, as to whether an appeal will lie from the refusal of a judge to grant an adjournment or postponement of an action was recently the subject matter of a decision of the English Courts in Dick v. Filler (17 T.L.R.276). The case is of interest to Irish practitioners, for the statement of Scott, L. J. of the tests which, in his view, should be applied by the judge in granting or refusing an application for the postponement of an action On the ground of the inability of a witness to attend through illness. " If," he said, " an important witness—a fortiori if he is a party—is prevented by illness from attending the Court for an adjourned hearing, at which his evidence is directly and seriously material, what is the legal duty of the judge when an adjourn ment is asked for ? In my view, if he is satisfied (1) of the medical fact and (2) that the evidence is relevant and may be important, it is his duty to give an adjournment—it may be on terms—but he ought to give it unless he is satisfied that an injustice would be done to the other side which cannot be reduced by costs." By Order XXXVI Rule 31 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which is identical in terms with the corresponding English Rule, a judge may, if he thinks it expedi ent for the interests of justice, postpone or adjourn a trial for such time and to such place and upon such terms as he shall think fit. In order to found a right of appeal from the refusal of a judge or judges to postpone or adjourn an action it will be necessary to establish that such refusal was " a judgment or order " of the High Court —or the Circuit Court—or a " decision " of a Justice of the District Court, and this might present difficulty if the judge or justice simply made no rule on the application. It was held in Maxwell v. Keun (1928 I.K.B.) that a refusal to grant an application for the postponement of an action, coupled with a direction that the applicant should pay the costs of the application, was " a judgment or Order " of the High Court and subject to appeal, which in that case was allowed. Hanworth, M. R., after referring to the English Order XXXVI Rule 34, quoted with approval the judgment of the Court in Sackville West v. Attorney General (128 L.T.Jo. 265) in which it was stated that although it could not be said that 48