The Gazette 1949-1952

He and his family had to live for nearly two years as lodgers with his father-in-law. He included in his claim for damages the inconvenience and discomfort to which he had in that respect been subjected. Barry, J., held that he was bound by the decision in Groom v. Crocker (1939) I.K .B . 194, which de­ cided that the rights and duties o f a solicitor were regulated by the contract o f employment, and that, in the absence o f any duty other than those imposed by the contract, a solicitor was not liable to his client in tort. In a proper case, damages for personal in­ convenience might be recovered in an action for breach o f contract. Hence the inconvenience was such that it should have been reasonably contem­ plated by the defendants as a probable result o f their failure to perform their contractual duties. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to £300 damages. LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS 1. Books received Acts o f the Oireachtas (Bound Volume)— 1948. Arnould—Marine Insurance and Laws o f Average, 2 vols.— 1950. Archbold—Criminal Pleadings and Practice, 32nd edition— 1949. Belfast and Ulster Directory— 1950. Bingham—Motor claim cases, Second Cumulative Supplement— 1949. Butterworth —Workmen’s Compensation Cases—Vol. 4 1, 1948- 49. CapHn—Powers o f Attorney— 1949. Catholic Directory—-1950. Charlesworth—Negligence, 2nd edition— 1947, with supplements. Coghlan—The Law o f Rent Restriction in Ireland, 2nd edition—-1950. Cripps—-Compulsory Acquisi­ tion o f Land, 2 vols., 9th edition— 1950. Dicey— Conflict o f Laws, 6th edition— 1949. Dix—Law relating to Competitive Trading—-1950. DubHn University Calendar— 1950-51. Dymond—Death Duties (10th edition), 3rd ConsoHdated Supplement — 1950. English and Empire Digest, Second Cumu­ lative Supplement. Freeman and Nicholls—Right of way, 3rd edition revised— 1946. Gale—Easements, 12th edition— 1950. Gazdar—National Insurance, 2nd edition—-1949. Grattan, Doyle and Napley— Remuneration o f Auctioneers and Estate Agents— 1947. Hamilton—Solicitors’ Guide to Development and Planning— 1949. Halsbury—Statutes of England, Cumulative Supplement No. 19— 1950, 2 vols. Head (F.D.) Meetings, 5th edition-—-1950. Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland. International Law List— 1951. Irish Catholic Directory and Almanack — 1950. Jervis—Coroners, 8th edition— 1946. Jos- ling—Change o f Name, 3rd edition—1950. Josling —Execution o f a Judgment—-1949. JosHng—Regis­ tration of Business Names— 1948. JosHng and Cap­ Hn—Apportionments for Executors and Trustees^— 58

solicitor’s possession, the solicitor held them after completion o f the mortgage exclusively in the right and on behalf of the mortgagee. By this change in the character o f the solicitor’s possession of the deeds, the solicitor’s lien against the mortgagor was destroyed, since the conditions necessary to support it, namely, the mortgagor’s right or title to the documents, had ceased to exist. Consequently the defendant was not entitled to any Hen on the docu­ ments. PerJenkins, L . J. :—“ I see no justification in prin­ ciple for holding that the mere accident o f continued physical possession o f deeds by a sohcitor necessarily involves the continuance o f his lien against the original depositor. No doubt he loses his lien if he parts with possession, but this is far from establishing the converse proposition that if he retains possession, his Hen is necessarily preserved. I f there is no re­ lationship o f soHcitor and client at the time o f the claim, the soHcitor cannot make good his Hen by showing that he originally received the deeds from the claimant as his cHent, and has since retained physical possession of them. ” E . v. T. (1949, Scots Law Times, 4 11):—A com­ plaint was made to the Solicitors’ Discipline Com­ mittee regarding the conduct o f a country soHcitor. The Committee reported the case to the Court with a finding that his neglect o f the interests o f his client and his obstinate delay in carrying out his profes­ sional duties amounted to professional misconduct. The respondent, T ., had in fact for two years, not­ withstanding repeated applications, failed to produce a certain deed and other titles, and knowingly mis­ represented the position. The First Division of the Court o f Session (Lord President Cooper, Lords Carmont and Russell), held that such gross professional negligence amounted in this case to professional misconduct and ordered that T. be suspended from practice for one year. Per curiam :—“ The defendant contemptuously dis­ regarded his professional responsibilities in relation to this transaction. Only strong grounds would justify the Court in condoning as innocent what the Statutory Committee, composed as it always is of professional men o f the highest repute and com­ petence, have condemned as guilty. The respondent has again and again adopted an attitude o f reckless indifference towards the responsibilities which pro­ fessional status as a solicitor carries with it ” . Bailey v. Bullock and others —94 Solicitors’ Journal, 689 (1950). As a result o f the negligence o f the managing clerk o f the defendants, a firm of solicitors, in connection with the plaintiff’s action for possession of a house, the plaintiff was put to certain expenses.