The Gazette 1967/71

form of a joint meeting with the Association of Child Psychologists and Child Psychiatrists of Ireland and was entitled "The Young Offen der". The speaker was Professor T. C. M. Gibbens, M.B.E., M.D. (Camb.) D.P.M Pro fessor of Forensic Psychiatry, University of Lon don DISTRICT JUSTICE PATRICK J. LOFTUS The Solicitors practising in District Court Area No. 4 gave a Dinner to District Justice Loftus in the Central Hotle Ballyhaunis on the 17th Feb ruary. The attendance was most representative of Counties Galway, Leitrim, Mayo, and Roscom- mon. Mr. James P. Glynn, President of the Galway Bar Association was in the chair. District Justices Gilvarry, McGahon and Sheerin and the Minister for Health Mr. Sean M. Flanagan were present. Lay Commissioner John Kelly was un avoidably absent. CASES OF THE MONTH Construction of "Necessitous" Relatives T left property to his executors on trust to dis tribute the income for the period of ten years from his death, among such of his "necessitous nieces and nephews (alive at the date of my death and such of their children" as the executors should think fit. On an application by the executors for the determination of questions relating to the construction of the will, held, (1) that the trust was not void for uncertainty, since "necessitous" meant necessitous according to the circumstances in life of the individual whose elegibility fell for consideration; (2) that the income was not to be confined to nephews and nieces who were neces sitous at T's death; (3) that the children of necessitous nephews and nieces qualified as mem bers of the class whom the executors might select, whether or not those children were necessitous; and (4) that the possible fluctuation of the class during the ten year period did not make the trust void for uncertainty. (Kilroy and Callan v Parker and McGarvan [1966] I. R. 309). Assessment of Damages : for Negligence : The Plaintiff was injured in the cause of his employment and instructed the defendant solicitor to make a claim against the employer; the solicitor failed to take action timeously, the claim became statute barred and the pursuer sued the solicitor for professional negligence. It was agreed that if

the employer had been found negligent, damages on the basis of full liability would have been £3000. The Lord Ordinary of Scotland held that the pursuer had not succeeded in showing that his employer was to blame, but he held that a jury might have found in favour of the pursuer. On appeal to the Outer House, held, that in this type of action it was relevant for the judge to consider the position as at the date when the action against the employer should have been raised and notwithstanding his own view on the evidence tendered in the action agaist the solici tor where the plaintiff had a case which could reasonably have been formulated against the em ployer, to take into consideration that the action might have been settled by the acceptance by the plaintiff of an offer from the employer; damages of £1000 awarded. (Yeoman's Executrix v Ferriers 1967 S.L.T. 332). Order for Costs against Solicitors : Two actions were struck out because of an in excusable delay by the plaintiff's solicitors. After unsuccessful appeals the solicitors were heard as to costs. Held, (1) that in the first action the solicitors should be required to undertake to pay the plaintiff's costs in the action and such costs as she might be ordered to pay the defendants in the action and in third party proceedings by the defendants; and (2) that in the second action, there being no request by the plaintiff for an order against the solicitors personally, and no undertaking being offered since it would consti tute a breach of the conditions in the solicitors' insurance policy, no order should be made. (Alien v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons; Stern- berg v Hammond [1968] 112 S. J. 72). Injunction to Restrain Breaches of Covenant : When a landlord's writ claims possession and, without prejudice to such claim, an injunction restraining the tenant from doing certain acts on the premises, there has not been an unequivocal demand for possession operating as a final election to determine the lease and the landlord may pro ceed at the trial on the basis that the lease still subsists and so obtain the injunction. Landlords issued a writ claiming, inter alia, possession of premises demised to the tenant, mene profits and without prejudice to those claims injunctions restraining the tenant from doing certain acts which would apparently be in breach of covenants in the lease. They then moved, pending trial, for the injunctions. The defendants 93