The Gazette 1955-58

and the effect of any residual disability would be considered. The nature of the injuries should as far as possible be conveyed in a non-technical manner that is easily understood. It is often difficult for a judge or jury to determine a conflict of medical opinion particularly when they are sharply divided ; this is due to such factors as competence and skill, partisanship and bias. In jury trials, competence as a witness is equally important. There is a tendency to give the injured party the benefit of all possible leniency, as well as a tendency to exaggeration by way of advance preparation against hostile cross- examination which will tend to make the doctor tone down his first judgment. Mr. McGrath concluded by giving full details of the New York Medical Expert Testimony Project sponsored by the American Bar Association in 1952 ; the basic idea was to set up panels of neutral, outstanding physi cians in various branches of medicine. This paper was followed by a lively discussion which was opened by Mr. Herman Good, solicitor. Mr. Good said he thought it was desirable that Courts assessing damages in personal injuries litiga tion should be aided by assessors. Mr. McCarthy, S.C., retired Circuit Judge, paid tribute to the Dublin juries for their painstaking labour and approach to legal problems when dealing with civil litigation. Dr. Martin Dyer, Chairman of the Executive Council of the Irish Medical Association, asserted that doctors in a case were primarily there to see that social justice was done, and that other inducements were only minor considerations. ON Thursday zyth March, 1958, a Symposium on the subject of " Infectious Carriers with special reference to Section 38 of the Health Act, 1947 " will be held at 8 p.m. in the Royal Hibernian Hotel. It will be recalled that Section 38 gives stringent powers to detain and isolate persons who are prob able sources of infection. The main speakers will be Mr. Arthur Cox, Solicitor ; Mr. T. A. Doyle, S.C.; Dr. P. Flynn, M.O.H., Co. Westmeath; and Dr. Thomas Murphy, Professor of Social and Preventive Medicine, U.C.D. Mr. Dermot P. Shaw was instrumental in arrang ing a largely attended meeting on the i zth February, 1958, in the Shamrock Lodge Hotel, Athlone, when local solicitors, barristers and doctors decided to form a Midlands Regional Branch of the Society. Dr. Frank McLaughlin, a Committee member, attended a meeting in Waterford on 2 5th January, 1958, for the purpose of establishing a Branch there ; he subsequently delivered a paper on " The Wolfenden Report." The Council of the Society has set up a Sub­

committee to examine the problem of " Unnatural Offences " in this country. The Council, following the findings of the Wolfenden Committee in Britain, considered this problem to be important, and accordingly instructed the Sub-committee to make a general survey of the position here, and to make recommendations. This Sub-committee consists of: Mr. J. McCarthy, S.C. (chairman) ; Mr. Niall McCarthy, Barrister-at-Law ; Professor E. Exshaw, Barrister-at-Law; Mr. Herman Good, Solicitor; Dr. F. McLaughlin ; Dr. J. Eustace and Dr. F. Bourke. DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST Taxing master disallows fee for leading counsel — court unable to interfere. LORD JUSTICE PARKER and Lord Justice Sellers dismissed this appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of Mr. Justice Donovan in chambers on i9th December, 1957, dismissing an appeal from the taxing master's disallowance of the fee for leading counsel, in a trial relating to damages only for personal injuries to the plaintiff; liability had been admitted. There was controversy as to whether symptoms from which the plaintiff was suffering related to the injury, and there was two medical witnesses on each side. £350 was paid into Court, and in the result the plaintiff was awarded £650, including £400 general damages. Lord Justice Parker, giving judgment, said that the master stated that he was of opinion that the circumstances of the case did not justify the briefing of two counsel; that no question of principle was involved as to the allowance or disallowance of two counsel and that it was a matter entirely for his discretion. Before the Judge and in this Court it was argued for the plaintiff that the master erred in principle. It was at one time suggested that Mr. Justice Donovan took the view that the question whether there should be two counsel or one was not a matter of principle at all, but only quantum, and that therefore he had no jurisdiction. He (his Lordship) thought it was quite clear that all Mr. Justice Donovan did was to say : " If I had been deciding this matter I might well, indeed I would, have come to a different conclusion." But this was a matter prima facie for the discretion of the Master. Mr. Thompson admitted that he had to show that the master went wrong in principle. In matters such as the question whether there should be two counsel allowed or one, it was im possible to say that there was no principle involved. Mr. Thompson argued that it had now become, if not the rule, at any rate the prevailing practice that