The Gazette 1972

and make good the surface. Although the Department had statutory power to lay the cable, they nevertheless obtained formal consent from the County Council for the work—but this was unnecessary It follows that the County Council is not responsible for the negligence of the Department of Posts and Tele- graphs. Circuit Court judgment affirmed. Appeal dis- missed [Johnston v Kilkenny Co. Council; Teevan J.; unreported; 6th July 1970.] High Court ruling in drink case—order discharged. In the High Court in Dublin yesterday Mr Justice Murnaghan held that it was within the jurisdiction of a District Justice not to grant an adjournment in a case because a case of similar type was under an appeal to the Supreme Court. He refused to make absolute a conditional Order of Prohibition which had been directed to District Justice Donnchadh Ua Donnchacha, ordering him to show cause why he should continue with the summary hear- ing of a charge brought against James Llewellyn, of Elm Road, Donnycarney, Dublin, in view of the fact that an appeal in a case of a similar nature was pending before the Supreme Court Mr Llewellyn is charged with having driven a motor car while his body contained a quantity of alcohol such that within three hours after driving the car the concen- tration of alcohol in his blood would exceed 125 milli- grammes to 100 millilitres of blood. The validity of the Road Traffic Act on this point under the Constitution was challenged in the High Court, but the President of the High Court (Mr. Justice O'Keeffe) dismissed the case, and an appeal to the Supreme Court is now pending. Mr. Llewellyn sought the adjournment of the charge against him on the grounds that the issues raised in the case pending before the Supreme Court were directly in point in the case against himself and that, if the District Justice proceeded with the hearing of the sum- mary charge against him, he (Mr. Llewellyn) would be deprived of the view of the Supreme Court on the validity of the law under which he was charged. The District Justice had said he felt obliged to pro- ceed with the hearing because there had been a deter- mination of the matter in the other proceedings before the High Court. An Order of Prohibition had then been sought. Mr. E. M. Walsh, S.C. (for Mr. Llewellyn), said that the district justice had adjourned the hearing of the case against Mr. Llewellyn when his attention had been drawn to the fact that a High Court action was pending in a similar matter. That action had been dis- missed, but, when told that an appeal was pending, the district justice had indicated that he was not prepared to grant another adjournment. A conditional Order of Prohibition was subsequently granted to Mr. Llewellyn, on whose behalf it had been submitted that in effect the adjudication determining the amount of alcohol came from the analyst's certi- ficate and that it could not be challenged. Mr. Walsh said that a substantial amount of law had yet to be argued in these proceedings—it was for the Supreme Court to decide the propriety of convicting or acquitting. Mr. D. P. Sheridan, S.C., for the District Justice, said that the presumption was that any legislation passed by

the Oireachtas was constitutional until the contrary was shown. It would be an invasion of the jurisdiction of a District Justice not to allow him to proceed wah the hearing. Mr Justice Murnaghan, discharging the conditional order, said that he was afraid that at the Bar judgments of the High Court were not always regarded with the solemnity they deserved. It was more or less taken for granted that the Supreme Court would set the judg- ment aside. That was not the situation. A judgment of the High Court was a serious matter and was the law. What he was being asked to do in this case was to say that the district justice must exercise his discretion in this case by granting the adjournment. It seemed to him, said Mr. Justice Murnaghan, that he was to decide whether, in doing what he did, the district justice was acting without jurisdiction He was satisfied that the district justice was acting within that juris- diction. £20,000 bail reduced by half. Hugh Meenan, of Barrack Street, Cork, and of Li&cloon, Shanfallan, Derry, who is charged with armed robbery from the Cobh branch of Allied Irish Banks Ltd., applied in the High Court, in Dublin, to have his bail reduced. Meenan had been allowed personal bail of £10,000 and one independent surety of £10,000. Mr. Justice Murnaghan varied the order and directed that he be admitted to bail in two independent sureties of £5,000 each. Mr. Justice Murnaghan said that Meenan was charged with a very serious offence which must, in present circumstances, carry quite a heavy sentence if he were convicted. Mr. Meenan is charged with conspiracy to rob the bank and, with two others, being armed with a Webley and Scott pistol, on August 24 last, robbing Godfrey F. J. Bernal of £9,200. Mr. Gordon Hayes, solicitor, for Mr. Meenan, read an affidavit by his client in which he said he had been in custody since August 26. He believed all the money, except about £100, had been recovered. He required bail to enable him to put his domestic and financial affairs in order.

Office of the Revenue Commissioners ESTATE DUTY BRANCH Dublin 2

INLAND REVENUE AFFIDAVIT FORM A1 In connection with deaths on and after 19th April 1972 Form A1 may be used for estates which do not exceed £5,000 gross value provided that the other conditions for use of this form are fulfilled. The limit of £3,000 continues to apply to deaths prior to 19th April 1972.

- 2 5 8