The Gazette 1952-1955

discretion. I felt bound to reject that plea because I do not think that there is any evidence to support it.” (Theocharides v. Joannou (195 5) 1 All E . R. 615). WATERFORD LAW SOCIETY. T he Annual General Meeting o f the Waterford Law Society was held on the 21st February when matters o f interest to the profession in the County were reviewed. The following officers for the current year were elected— President—Mr. Kevin J. O’Shaughnessy ; Hon. Secretary and Treasurer—Mr. Matthew J. Lardner ; Committee—Messrs. D. R. Counahan, Kevin Nugent, George A. Nolan, Peter J. O’Connor and Fergus Power. LAW COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA T he Society has been notified by the President of the above Council that the Ninth Legal Convention o f the Council will be held at Brisbane, Australia, from July 19th to 24th. Any members o f this Society who may be in Australia at that time will be welcomed at the Convention. Arrangements can be made to provide hotel accommodation for overseas visitors if notice is given before the end o f May to the Assistant-Secretary, The Law Council o f Australia, Box No. 407F., G.P.O., Brisbane, Australia. RECENT LEGAL LITERATURE. P art II.—August, 1954 to January, 1955. Accidents in Parks and Recreation Grounds : “ Lewis v. Carmarthen, C.C.” (L .T ., 24th December, 1954). Adoption—Some Aspects of the Law o f (The Solicitor, January, 1955). Beccaria (L .T ., 28th January, 1955). Cash held to be good security instead o f bond : “ United Africa Co. v. Owoade ” (L .T ., 14th January, 1955). Classless Society—-Interpretation o f “ Working Class ” (L .T ., 14th January, 1955). Collateral Powers : “ Re Coates deed.—Ramaden v. Coates ” (S.J., 22nd January, 1955). Colonial Constitution (Singapore)—Making of (Hood Phillips) (L.J 2 -R., January, 1955). Comparative Aspects o f Undisclosed Agency (Muller Freienfels) (N.L.R., January, 1955). Communications without Prejudice (The Solicitor, January, 1955). Conseil d’Etat—Executive Discretion in France

jurisdiction to overrule the decision o f the taxing master, and the expenses would be allowed. (ii) The £ 2 1 which the taxing master had allowed as compensation to the country solicitor in respect o f attendances in London ought not to be included as part of aft addition to the sum allowed on the instructions for the main brief but should be allowed and distributed among the specific items to which it related. (iii) Instructions for the examination of a witness on commission were different from instructions on the main brief and the fee for the former should not have been included in the amount allowed for the latter; the fee o f £3 3s. for instructions on the examination would be allowed. (iv) On the facts the supplemental instructions to counsel were justified and the fee for them should have been distinct from the fee allowed for instructions for the main b rief; accordingly, a fee o f £ 26 5s. would be allowed in respect of the supplemental instructions. (v) The decision o f the taxing master to reduce the fee for instructions on the main brief from £630 to £2 10 was within his discretion over the quantum o f costs, the difference in amount was not such as o f itself to show that the discretion had not been exercised properly, and the court had no jurisdiction to interfere with his decision. Per Harman, J . : “ The taxing master was entitled, I think, to take into account the fact that, when the certificate was given, the solicitor did not start entirely de novo. He was also, I think, entitled to take into consideration the fact that, although a lot o f time must have been spent on the work, no details were given. After all, however, the amount o f a fee for work of this sort is not given according to how many half hours were spent. The fee is a guess at its worth. It seems to me that the taxing master’s guess is quite as good as another’s and very much better than anything o f mine would be, because he is very much more experienced. I cannot say whether or not two hundred guineas is the sort of fee which ought to be allowed on this sort o f occasion. Before I could reject the decision o f the taxing master that, in the circumstances, two hundred guineas was the proper amount to allow, I should have to be satisfied that that was not an amount which any reasonable taxing officer could assess, and I can find no possible basis on which I can do that. The taxing officer knows much better than I do how these things go. “ The present case was a remarkable one. The defendant’s bill of costs was brought in for some £2,400, and o f that the taxing master disallowed about £1,100 . The defendant’s solicitor says, in effect, that such a disallowance shows, on its face, that the taxing master was not exercising a judicial