The Gazette 1961 - 64

RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS (No. 2) 1964 S.I. No. 96 of 1964 The Rules of the Superior Courts (No. 2), 1964, prescribe procedures in respect of applications under the Companies Act, 1963, and replace Order 75 and Appendix N of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1962. Copies may be obtained from the Government Publications Sale Office, G.P.O. Arcade, Dublin i, for z/- each, plus postage. THE LAW OF STAMP DUTIES" A comprehensive volume containing the Stamp Act, 1891, and the Stamp Duties Management Act, 1891, together with the text of all the amending, extending and repeal provisions contained in subsequent enactments up to and including the Finance Act, 1963. Non-revenue enactments imposing Stamp Duties or conferring special exemption from Stamp Duties are also included. The volume is in loose-leaf form. Amending leaves will be published so that it may be kept up-to-date.

questions resulted from an objection made by his counsel in the district court to an application of the Assistant State Solicitor, to amend three of four charges against Mr. Higgins under the Road Traffic Act of 1933. The complaints related to the driving of a motor car at Dublin on September loth, 1959 and it appeared from the charge sheet that Mr. Higgins had first been before the court on charges on September nth of that year and had, from time to time, been remanded on bail. On October 3131, 1960, the solicitor, who was conducting the prosecution, applied to have three of the charges amended by adding to the end of each of them the words: "Contrary to the Statute in that case made and provided". Counsel for Mr. Higgins objected to such amend ments, and after hearing his submissions and those of the prosecuting solicitor, the District Justice submitted a number of questions to the President of the High Court for his opinion. The principal questions asked by the District Justice were whether he had jurisdiction to amend the charges as requested; whether he had dis cretion to grant or refuse the proposed amendments, and, if he had a discretion, on what principles it should be exercised. To these questions the President said that the District Justice had such jurisdiction and that in general he had a discretion to grant or refuse the proposed amendments, and that in every case a point might be reached where the discretion could be exercised only in one way if justice was to be done. In this case there was no reason why the amendment asked should be refused. In regard to the principles in which the discretion should be exercised, the President answered that it was so as to ensure that the real issue between the com plainant and defendant might be decided and the complaints heard and determined in accordance with law. The Supreme Court made no order as to costs. (Irish Times, 19th March, 1964.) DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST State Privilege In Mericks and Another v. Nott-Bower & Others the plaintiffs, Police Officers, claimed declarations that, inter alia, their transfer was in breach of the principles of natural justice, and also damages for libel in respect of a minute relating to that transfer. The defendants, a present and former Commissioner of the Metropolitan police and another, applied to strike out the statement of claim, producing 97

NOW AVAILABLE PRICE 3 GUINEAS

from

the Government Publications Sale Office, G.P.O. Arcade, Dublin i. (Postage is. gd. extra)

POWER OF JUSTICES TO AMEND CHARGES Questions about the jurisdiction of a district justice in amending charges were answered recently by the Supreme Court. The court was giving judg ment in an appeal against the decision of the President of the High Court in a case submitted to him for his opinion by a District Justice. The Supreme Court (O'Dalaigh, C. J. and Walsh, J., Kingsmill Moore, J. dissenting) upheld the President's judgment. The appeal was on behalf of Malachi Higgins of Wyckham Park, Dundrum, Co. Dublin, and the