The Gazette 1973

she would be a Roman Catholic at that time and she had stated in her affidavit that she never knew before her father's death that this undertaking was required of her. She had no knowledge of it and that was the reason no undertaking had been given. What the testator (Mr. Doyle) meant, he submitted, was a conscious refusal on the part of his daughter or a conscious failure or neglect to carry out his require- ments. He had never communicated it to his daughter. "When Mrs. Jamieson found that something of this nature had been required of her she promptly went to the parish priest and gave the undertaking." Wrongful interference Mr. Lardner said of the condition that she should remain a practising Catholic, that it was a provision which constituted a wrongful interference with her right of freedom of conscience and the free profession of her religion given to her under Article 44 of the Constitu- tion. Mr. Lardner submitted that Mrs. Jamieson had complied with one of the conditions in that she was a Catholic on the date of her father's death. She had not refused and had not failed to give an undertaking to the parish priest that she would continue as a prac- tising Catholic. By giving the undertaking as soon as it was required of her she had substantially complied with the testator's condition. Mr. Barrington said that the conditions in the will had no bearing on the case because they were both void as being contrary to public policy in Ireland, under Article 44 of the Constitution. If the State was to respect and honour religion he submitted it was offensive to that policy for a Court to uphold anything in the nature of a bribe to practise a religion that he or she did not believe in. If the State upheld the value of freedom of conscience, it too would be offensive for a Court to uphold a gift to a person so that he or she would not follow her own conscience in such an important matter as their religion. They had this extraordinary factor in this case where the testator was told by his solicitor that he should tell his daughter that she must give this undertaking and he did not tell her. Left void for uncertainty Giving judgment, Mr. Justice Kenny held that the phrase "a practising Roman Catholic" was void for uncertainty. "We have no idea what 'a practising Roman Catholic' means, apart from the fact that it involves the Court in the extremely distasteful task of inquiring into people's religious beliefs". He held the condition requiring Mrs. Jamieson to be a Roman Catholic at the time of her father's death not to be repugnant to the Constitution. Mrs. Jamieson said she did not know about this condition before the tes- tator died, but it was not a breach of her right of free- dom of conscience as guaranteed by the Constitution, which also guaranteed the free profession and practice of religion. On the other hand, said Mr. Justice Kenny, he had no doubt whatever that the second condition in the will requiring Mrs. Jamieson to give a firm undertaking to the parish priest for the time being of New Ross, prior to the testator's death that she would remain a prac- tising Roman Catholic, was an attempted interference with her constitutional right what religion, or lack of religion, she was going to belong to. 59

Mr. Justice Pringle said he thought that while the definition of "stopper" in the regulations used the word "screw-top", that it was intended that it should be a screw-top which would seal the tube. While he thought the interpretation of the regula- tions was not free from doubt, he considered that he must interpret them in such a manner as to give the benefit of such doubt to Mr. Hollingsworth. [A.G. and Suptd. Nagle v. Hollingsworth; Pringle J.; unreported; 15th February 1973] Will clause on religion rejected by Judge: New Ross man's estate for daughter. This attempt to get Mrs. Jamieson to give an under- taking that she would remain a practising Roman Catholic was a quite clear attempt to interfere with her freedom of conscience and it was contrary to the Consti- tution, said Mr. Justice Kenny in the High Curt, Dublin, yesterday. He was giving judgment in an action in which he was asked to determine the true construction of a will made by a Co. Wexford shopkeeper, John A. Doyle, late of the Chalet, New Ross, who bequeathed his entire estate, valued at £15,758, to his daughter, Alice, on the condition that she should be a Roman Catholic at the time of his death and that prior to his death she would be required to give a firm undertaking to the parish priest of New Ross of remaining a prac- tising Roman Catholic. The Judge ruled that Mr. Doyle's daughter was absolutely entitled to the property. The action was brought by a Dublin solicitor, John Rochford, of Lower Ormond Quay, on behalf of Mr. Doyle's daughter, Mrs. Alice M. Jamieson, now living in Scotland, against the Bank of Ireland Trustee Com- pany Ltd., who are the executors of the estate of the late Mr. Doyle's brother and sister, the late Philip and Mary Doyle. In his will dated 12 August 1967 Mr. Doyle, who died on 11 January 1969, said that in the event of his daughter not being a Roman Catholic at the date of his death, or of having failed or refused to give the under- taking, he disinherited her from participation in any way in his estate. In that event he appointed John Redmond Colfer, solicitor, New Ross, as sole executor of his will and he bequeathed his estate to his sister, Mary, and his brother, Philip, or their respective heirs (excluding his daughter) if they should predecease him, in equal shares. Catholicism not contested Mr. Gerard Lardner, S.C., who appeared for Mrs. Jamieson, said he did not think that it was contested by anybody that she was baptised a Roman Catholic and that she still was one. She was arguing in favour of the validity of the gift to her and claiming that there had been no failure on her part to perform the condition of the will on which the gift depended. Mr. Donal Barrington, S.G., who appeared for the Bank of Ireland, said he represented both of the estates of Mary and Philip Doyle. He submitted that if the bequest to Mrs. Jamieson were to fail, a problem would arise in relation to the gift—over what precisely it meant. The difficulty arose, Mr. Lardner said, in regard to the fact that she had not given the undertaking that