The Gazette 1972

that the unfortunate owner ol the hotel had to purchase another licence at the cost of over £2,000. The difficulty is that the revenue authorities issued the same form of licence in each case. In other words, w hat the recipient gets is a document marked "Publi- ^ n s Licence". There is no reference to a hotel or anything of this nature on the form. It is interesting to note in Mr. Shillman's book on the Lice ns i n g Laws of Ireland that he states as follows : "Before the passing of the 1902 Act, the Revenue Commissioners had authority, under Section 43 (4) of ffie Inland Revenue Act, 1880, to issue what were then kno Wn a s «Hotel Licences'. But there is now no such thing as a hotel licence. The licence which can now be granted to a hotel under Section 2 of the 1902 Act, is a n ordinary publican's licence, subject to the provisions applicable to retailers' licences (see pages 168 to 171). Accordingly, with respect to such a licence, there is no prohibition against sales to the general public. This was decided in Burke's case (1906), where the owner of the Rhoenix Park Hotel, Dublin, was convicted by a Dublin Police Magistrate of selling intoxicating liquors to per- sons not being travellers or lodgers in the hotel, but conviction was reversed by the King's Bench Division." The main effect, of course, of a hotel licence is that me hotel cannot have a bar. One can foresee the danger in a case where a solicitor acting for the purchaser of a hotel completes the sale on

the basis of the hotel having a publican's licence whereas, in fact, it may only have a hotel licence. In such a case a bar cannot be operated and the unfortu- nate solicitor might be open to an action for negligence in not so advising his client. Happily the case I mentioned had no come back on the solicitor involved as his client was a reasonable man. While the solicitor suggested he might have an action against the vendor for contracting to sell a publican's licence whereas, in fact, he had only a hotel licence, the client expressed the view that this was done by the vendor in good faith and proceeded to purchase another licence at a cost of over £2,000. It might be worth considering putting a note in a future issue of the Gazette to warn our colleagues of the possible danger and indeed, you might also consider it appropriate to bring the matter before the Department of Justice with a view to having some different type of licence issued in the case of a hotel and which would clearly on the face of the form indicate the nature of the licence.

Of course, the whole system of differentiating between a publican's licence and a hotel licence is rather stupid and it would be much better just to have the one type of licence relating to all premises where liquor is con- sumed on the premises. Being virtually a teetotaler, perhaps I should not express too strong an opinion. Dublin Solicitor. Polio Numbers on Land Commission Demands _ 18th November 1971 O'Brien, Esq.,

As you are aware, not all lands charged with a land purchase annuity, or analogous payment, are registered. The exceptions fall mainly in the category of lands purchased under the Acts prior to 1891 before regis- tration was made compulsory, or in the category where the fee-simple interest is not yet vested in the purchasing tenant or allottee. In such cases, of course, the demand will carry no folio reference as there is none. There is another situation in which the reference, though existing, may be lacking in our records. In my letter of 15th February last (fifth paragraph) I men- tioned the fact that we cannot guarantee absolute accur- acy for a folio reference supplied at second hand. That circumstance may extend to a lack of the folio refer- ence altogether in a very small percentage of our records and the November/December 1971 issue, being the first run of folio annotated demands, we are conscious that omissions of the past will be reflected in the absence of the appropriate folio reference in the very odd case, just as obtained, I should emphasise, in the era of the ten-yearly receivable order. We hope to correct the record as far as possible according as these exceptional instances are brought to light and we have provided the necessary systems to that end. The case at issue is, I am sure, accounted for by one or other of the exceptional situations referred to. If you care to let me have particulars—the reference numbers of the offending demands—I will have the matter investigated fully. Yours sincerely, T. O'Brien (Secretary). 61

secretary, Department of Lands, <4 Upper Merrion St., Dublin 2. De ar Mr. O'Brien,

I refer to your letter of the 15th February 1971 on e matter of having folio numbers marked on half- year ly demands. I have now received correspondence from a membér 0 the effect that the folio number has not appeared on ^me November demands. . Perhaps you would let me know the present position ln this matter at your convenience. Yours sincerely, Joseph G. Finnegan (Assistant Secretary). * * * Joeph G. Finnegan, Esq., Assistant Secretary, Incorporated Law Society, wear Mr. Finnegan, I have your letter of the 18th instant concerning Quotation of the folio number on half-yearly demands lss *ed for land annuity instalments. . Since my letter of 15th February, 1971, and as prom- therein, we have carried out the operations neces- j 1 f o r inclusion of the folio reference as part of the p t o on these demands and, in general, the current Ss ue carries the appropriate references. Department of Lands, Dublin. 30th November 1971. >