The Gazette 1975

ing Requisition on Title: "Mrs. Gwendoline Kellett does not appear to have complied with the Name and Arms Clause of the Deed of December 1933. Accord- ingly the purported Conveyance by her of one-third of the property for sale was inoperative, and such one- third is outstanding in the person next entitled as tenant in tail male of her'share. A confirming Convey- ance from him must be procured." The reply was : "No confirming Conveyance necessary. The Name and Arms Clause is void for uncertainty." The plaintiffs then issued a Vendor and Purchaser Summons seeking a Declaration that all Requisitions had been sufficiently answered. Since the Irish decision in Re Montgomery Deed. (1953) and in De Vere Deed. (1961), titles to property included in the Vernon and other estates have been accepted on the basis that Names and Arms clauses are void for uncertainty in Ireland; there were at least five decisions of the English Chancery Court to the same effect. Prima facie the previous Irish decisions should be followed, particularly as Dixon J's judgment in Montgomery Deed, was unanswerable. Vendors claim that the 78 Requisitions on Title were sufficiently answered. This claim is too broad, and accordingly a declaration will be made that the Name and Arms clause is void for uncertainty. Accordingly the requisi- tions of the defendants in respect of that clause have been sufficiently answered by the plaintiffs. (Kearns and McCarron v. Manresa Estates Ltd. — Kenny J. — unreported — 25 July 1975.) Appeal in slander action fails—Farmers in Dispute A slander action arising out of remarks alleged to have been made at public meetings of dairy farmers and milk producers 1970/71 came before Mr. Justice Griffin in the High Court on Circuit in Cork. The case was originally tried in the Cork Circuit 18 months ago, when the plaintiffs, Timothy Mur- phy, dairy farmer, and his two sons, Cornelius and Daniel, all of Ballclough, sued Michael Cronin, Rylane, for £2,000 damages for slander. The Circuit Court Judge dismissed the claim and an appeal was lodged against the decision by Cornelius and Daniel Murphy in the High Court, their father having died in the meantime. The remarks which form the subject of the action were alleged to have been made at meetings attended by large numbers of dairy farmers and representatives of the Agricultural Organisational Society held in Enniskeane on January 8th, 1970 in Coachford on January 9th, 1970, and in Agha'bullogue on December 23rd, 1971. The plaintiffs claimed that Michael Cronin, the defendant, said and repeated at the later meetings that one producer was completely debarred from taking his milk to Ballyclough, because he added a certain sub- stance to his milk and would not give a guarantee never to do it again. These words applied to the three plaintiffs and im- plied that they had acted wrongfully and were fraudul- ently gaining a reward for themselves. The words were alleged to be slanderous and to hold the plaintiffs up to public ridicule and contempt. In a general denial the defendant pleaded that if the .298

Name and Arms clause held void for uncertainty. It had already been held by Dixon J. in Re Mont- gomery Deed. — Jellett v. Waddington — (1953) 89 I.L.T.R. — and by Budd J. in De Vere Deed. Jellett v. O'Brien — (1961) I.R. — that a Name and Arms clause was void for uncertainty. However, the English Court of Appeal in Re Neeld Deed. — (1962) 2 All E.R. — had reversed all previous decisions and held such a clause valid. The purchaser is buying from the vendors, who are Jesuit Fathers, a substantial area of land in Clon- tarf which formerly formed part of the Vernon Estate. Despite these two Irish decisions the purchaser main- tains that a Name and Arms clause in a deed of 18 December 1933 is valid and effective and that conse- quently vendors had not shown proper title. Kenny J. first set out the title in full, and referred to a Settlement of 23 December 1879 and to a Disentailing Deed of 18 December 1933. Apart from the Disentailing Deed, a further Deed was made on the same date between (1) Edward Kingston Vernon, (2) Robert Vernon (Edward's eldest son) and (3) John G. Oulton and Edward W. Davy (trustees), which appointed the lands therein described, subject to the life estate of Edward, to the use of Robert during his life, and, after his death, to each of Robert's sons in remainder according to their seniority, and to their heirs male. If Robert had no issue, then the land was to go to his three sisters, Gwendoline, Elizabeth and Cynthia Vernon, and their heirs, in tail according to their seniority. Every person who becomes entitled to the lands as tenant in tail male or tenant in tail by purchase shall use the surname of Vernon and bear the arms of Vemon within one year after becoming so entitled. In the case of a married daughter, the husband is to assume the name of Vernon and apply for a license to bear the arms of Vernon within one year of the daughter obtaining possession of the lands. If for any reason later the daughter or her husband should disuse such surname, the lands were to devolve upon the person next entitled in remainder. On 15 July 1937, a Supplemental Deed to the one of December 1933 was made between (1) Edward and Robert Vernon, and (2) John Oulton and Edward Davy. By this instrument, Edward and Robert, in exer- cise of their power of appointment, appointed the lands in default of Robert's issue to Margaret Gwendoline Vernon, Daisy Elizabeth Vernon and Cynthia Mabel Vernon; these daughters were to hold the lands as tenants in common in tail with cross remainders. Robert died on 30 June 1945 unmarried, and thereupon his three sisters became entitled to the lands as tenants in common in tail. Gwendoline had married John Kell- ett, who would not assume the name of Vernon, and whose interest was thus determined. Elizabeth became Mrs. Shepard, while Cynthia became Mrs. Rann. By a deed of 15 January 1962 between (1) Elizabeth Shep- ard and Mabel Cynthia Rann, (2) Edward Vernon (their father), and (3) Rupert Willoughby Oulton and Leslie Mellon (trustees), Elizabeth and Cynthia, with the consent of Edward (the protector of the settlement), granted two equal undivided third parts in the lands to hold the same unto the trustees upon trusts therein defined. Edward has since died, and from then, Eliza- beth and Cynthia, and probably also Gwendoline Kell- ett, have all become tenants in tail of the estate. The Jesuit Fathers, who are plaintiffs, purchased the free- hold interest in the lands from Gwendoline, Elizabeth and Cynthia. In the course of investigating the present title, the solicitors for the defendant company made the follow-