The Gazette 1955-58

November, in the Royal Hibernian Hotel, at 7.45 p.m., on " The problems of unnatural offences." Full particulars as to membership, etc., may be obtained from the Hon. Secretary Mr. M. J. Leech 4 Chancery Place, Dublin. Phone 76931 DUBLIN SOLICITORS' BAR ASSOCIATION A MEETING of the Council of the Association was held on Wednesday, 3rd July, 1957. The Subcommittee has had the benefit of an interview with the County Registrar concerning the performance of their duties by Civil Bill Officers, and a recommendation has been made as to the qualification and training of future candidates. The Association's form of precedent letting agreement has now been circulated to all members. The Council hope that it will have as much success as the Association's form of contract for sale. The Council are now considering the possibility of producing executor and trustee precedent forms. The date for the annual general meeting of the Association has been provisionally fixed for Wednes day, 9th October, 1957. Notices will be issued in due course. The next meeting of the Council of the Association was fixed for Wednesday, 25th September, 1957. A SPECIAL General Meeting of the Association was held in the Bar Room, Castlebar, on Wednesday, 3rd July, 1957. A resolution congratulating Mr. Michael Moran, T.D., on his appointment as Minister for the Gael- tacht and wishing him every success was proposed by Mr. Alfred V. G. Thornton, and seconded by Mr. Patrick J. McEllin and passed with acclamation. Mr. Patrick J. McEllin was co-opted a member of the Committee in lieu of Mr. Michael Moran. The fees under the Enforcement of Court Orders Acts, 1926, as approved by Justices of Nos. 7, 8 and 9 Districts were adopted and ordered to be printed and distributed amongst members. The Dinner of the Association to be held in Newport House Hotel has been fixed for Saturday, 19th October next, in honour of Mr. Scan Hannon, Lay Commissioner of the Land Commission, and Mr. Michael Moran,T.D.,Minister for the Gaeltacht. All members are requested to become members of the Solicitors' Benevolent Association. The Honorary Secretary has sent a circular addressed to each member urging such membership and offering to forward any subscriptions given to him. MAYO SOLICITORS BAR ASSOCIATION

DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST

Justices who employ counsel to defend prerogative writs in the High Court, instead of sending in affidavits under the review of Justices Decisions Act, 1872, have to pay the costs of the other side, if they lose the case. The applicant moved for an order of mandamus directing the licensing justices for the division of Llanidloes, Montgomeryshire, to hear and deter mine an application for the extension of licensing hours. The justices appeared by counsel to oppose the motion. The Court having granted the order of mandamus, counsel for the applicant asked for the costs of the application. The Divisional Court (Lord Goddard, L.C.J., Hilbery and Devlin J.J.) granted this application. Per Lord Goddard, C.J. : The justices have made themselves parties to this application and the applicant is entitled to costs against them. The justices were entitled, if they chose, to avail them selves of the Review of Justices Decisions Act, 1872, which allows them to file affidavits. They do not then make themselves liable for costs, and they do not have to pay any stamp duty on the affidavit. If, however, they choose to appear here, they make themselves parties to the lis and take the risk of being ordered to pay costs, and are entitled to receive costs if they succeed in defeating the application. I have been trying to remind justices, not only in court, but also in addresses that I have given to them, of their rights under the Act of 1872. That Act was passed for the very purpose of allowing justices, against whom a motion for certiorari or mandamus was made, to put in affidavits giving their reasons for opposing the motion, so that the court could decide the case on the affidavits, but if justices will insist on instructing counsel and coming before the court and arguing the case, they are making themselves parties to a lis. The legis lature has given them this opportunity of putting their views before the court without being liable for costs. If they do not choose to take it, that is their affair. The justices have come here, filed affidavit after affidavit, and have had the benefit of counsel's strenuous argument. Counsel for Licensing Justices :—In my sub mission it would be a departure from previous practice that costs should be awarded against justices unless they had acted capriciously or oppressively. Orders which cover the indemnity of justices have been commonly made. Lord Goddard, C.J. :—Then why should .they 39