The Gazette 1967/71

for (e.g. notices, resolutions, etc.) but may not draw or prepare the memorandum or articles of associa tion. The preparation of the last mentioned docu ments is restricted to practising barristers and solicitors. It is well established that the expectation of gain, directly or indirectly is sufficient to bring the agent within the provisions of the Acts. In the issue of Business and Finance of 19th January 1968 Mr. J. E. Nolan the director of a company known as Irish Formations Ltd. adver tised a new service under the heading of "cut price companies'. More recently another company operating from England known as Company Documents (Europe) Ltd. whose registered office is in London has published a letter signed by Mr. Bryan Essenhigh in Business and Finance of llth July 1969. Following this, Company Docu ments (Europe) Ltd. circulated to chartered accountants in Dublin and elsewhere a letter with a form of instructions and specimen forms of memorandum and articles of association. Examina tion of the forms of memorandum and articles of association published by Irish Formations Ltd. and Company Documents (Europe) Ltd. reveals that they are identical, with exactly the same variations from the statutory forms in the Com panies Act 1963. Both sets of articles contain clauses excluding the operation of various regula tions in table A. There are regulations deal ing with lien, general meetings, directors and de claration of interests which are completely new or variations of corresponsing regulations in table A and both sets of memorandum of association contain similar provisions amending or adapting statutory form. Furthermore the forms issued by Company Documents (Europe) Ltd. contain side notes and directions and persons using the service are informed that the customer should either draft his own principal objects clause or may obtain on request a suitable precedent from Company Documents Ltd. The papers in both these matters have been submitted to Senior Counsel who advises that the activities of both companies if carried out in accordance with the published literature would contravene the relevant provisions of the Solici tors Act 1954 as amended by the Companies Act 1963. Counsel has advised that the service offered by Irish Formations Ltd. and Company Docu ments (Europe) Ltd. as outlined in the explana tory literature emanating from these companies involves a contravention of the statutory pro visions and that solicitors availing of the service may themselves become involved in a breach of the statutory provisions. Counsel in his opinion states that the instructions forms issued bv these the purpose of the Companies Acts

companies clearly indicate that they are taking instructions from the customer to enable the com panies to draw and prepare the memorandum and articles of association. CASES OF THE MONTH Extradition—Offence connected with Political Offence 1. Bourke's assistance in the escape of George Blake was not given with a view to furthering the political aims of the Soviet. 2. English Attorney-General has given undertak ing not to prosecute Bourke for harbouring a spy. The President is thus satisfied that the Plaintiff was not to be prosecuted for this—as it is not a political offence. 3. The question whether this was an offence connected with a political offence—mentioned in Article 5 of European Convention on Ex tradition was next considered. It was held that there could be no limitation of this phrase in Section 50 of Extradition Act 1965—as Blake was convicted of a political offence (espionage), consequently the ofence of helping him to escape was undoubtedly an offence connected with a political offence. 4. Therefore the plaintiff was entitled to be re leased under Section 50 of the Extradition Act 1965 and could not be extradited to Britain. Note—This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court on 31st July 1969, but the reasons have not yet been given. (Scan Bourke v. Attorney-General, High Court, O'Keeffe, P., 3rd February 1969, unreported). Peace Commissioner's Summons—Jurisdiction on face Davitt, P. held on a case stated, that a summons was undoubtedly a judicial process, but it was not a record of the judicial determination to issue a summons. Rule 30 of the District Court Rules 1948 lays down the circumstances when a Peace Commissioner can issue a summons. Rule 22 deals with the form and content of summonses, and refers back to Form 4 in the Schedule of forms; this form of summons does not state the district or area, and only refers to the signature of the Justice or Peace Commissioner. If the rule-making authority intended that the summons should on its face show the jurisdiction of the person who issued it, the rules and forms would have so provided. As they never did so provide, it can only be that it was never intended that the summons 45