The Gazette 1961 - 64

paragraph is taken from an article which the learned judge had written in the March 1963 issue of the American Bar Association Journal:— "A first office of a lawyer in our society is to protect individual rights, especially those secured to people accused of trespassing society's laws. American lawyers cannot be mere private prac titioners of the law. That phrase—' government by law '—is no empty platitude. It is the essence of a free society. No nation possesses a code which is better designed to assure the civilized and decent administration of justice—this is the hall mark of a free society. But that code will provide only paper protection if our people are more concerned with prosecutions that are overturned, than with funda mental principles that are upheld. Because it is only in upholding fundamental principles, even at the expense of freeing some not-very-nice people, that the protections for nice people are maintained." P.A.Y.E. TEST CASE SOLICITOR'S CLAIMS FOR WORK In a Magistrates Court in England recently an action was brought by the Inland Revenue which stated, that a solicitor objected to doing a Tax man's work under the P.A.Y.E. system for nothing. The solicitor refused to admit liability for non payment of £12. 2S., outstanding income tax for the 1962/63 period. Refusal was based on two principles firstly that no man could be forced to work for nothing and secondly that only by Act of Parliament could personal liberty be interfered with. The Inland Revenue contended that it was a subject's duty to carry out statutory duties and that there was no entitlement to remuneration by employers for deducting tax. Under the Legal Aid Scheme a solicitor was paid for his services, and the collection of tax was a service for which he should also be paid. The Magistrates made an order against the solicitor, who stated it was his intention to appeal the decision. CLAIMS AGAINST ESTATES IN THE U.S.A. A member of the Society recently wrote stating that he acted for beneficiaries in Ireland who had received a communication from an investigation bureau in the United States informing them that they were entitled to a share in an estate and offering to investigate and prosecute the claim in return for a commission of 40% of the amount recovered. Member advised the clients that the rate of com mission was excessive but had no further information to enable him to trace the situation of the assets, the date or place of death of the deceased or any other information which would enable him to proceed

with the matter. The Society took the matter up with the Department of External Affairs and, as the result of investigations by the Department, the State and County where the deceased had died was ascertained. Further investigation revealed that the deceased had died some three years ago and that the public administrator had filed a petition for letters of administration. As the heirs at law were unknown the assets were distributed to the State. The Depart ment advised the Society that an attorney in the State concerned advised the Consul General that an escheated estate may be reclaimed for the legal heir within five years of the date on which the final decree was made. For this purpose however very full documentary evidence is required since the Attorney General's office acting on behalf of the State opposes claims of heirs which would have the effect of depriving the State of the escheated funds. The facts of the present case are of interest from two aspects. Solicitors for Irish beneficiaries may, by means of enquiries through the Department of External Affairs, be able to trace American estates without the intervention of roreign agents who charge a high rate of commission. It is also important to note that the period on the expiration of which property escheats to the State is short in some of the States of the Union. In the present case the deceased died in November 1960. Letters of administration were granted in December 1960 and the final discharge was filed in June 1963. On that date the property escheated to the State of California and claims of beneficiaries will be finally barred five years thereafter. SETTLEMENT OF DAMAGES LIMITATION OF COSTS Judgment for £50,000 and costs was entered in favour of an infant plaintiff for damages for personal injury based on admitted negligence, with liberty to apply as to the disposal of all monies recovered by her or her behalf. Subsequently a deed of settle ment of the damages was drawn up and the court ordered that the monies payable as damages be paid to a custodian trustee to be held on the terms of the settlement. On taxation the defendant objected to all the items of costs incurred in connection with the trust deed and its approval holding that the items were not properly1 part of a party and party bill of costs. The Taxing Master however allowed all the items and on review sustained his decision. Defendant applied to the Court for review relying on rule 28 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules 1959. Megaw J. considering Rule 28 (2) " there shall be allowed all such costs as were necessary or proper for the attain ment of justice or for enforcing or defending the 47