The Gazette 1919-20

The Gazette ol the Incorporated Law Society ot Ireland.

MAY, 19191

certain premises were let for one year and one-eighth of a year from llth November, 1915, at the yearly rent of ^40, payable quarterly on the usual quarter days. The first payment of rent, amounting to £5, was paid on the 25th December, 1915, being for the one-eighth or half-quarter ending on that date. Thereafter the tenant paid the quarter's rent on the usual quarter days, and the term of the original letting having come to an end on the 25th December, 1916, the tenant remained on and was accepted as a continuing tenant. Thereby the tenancy became an ordinary yearly tenancy. On the 8th June, 1917, the tenant gave notice to quit for the 25th December, 1917, treating the tenancy as commencing at Christmas. The landlord objected that the tenancy should be treated as one commencing on llth November, the date of the commence– ment of the original letting, and that, there– fore, he was entitled to have the tenancy determined only by a notice expiring on the llth November, 1918. The Court held that the tenancy was a Christmas tenancy, and the notice given to expire on the 25th December, 1917, was valid. The case, which contains an exhaustive review of the authorities on the subject, should be read. (L. R., 1919, 1 Ch. 277.) Confidential Communications—Duty to keep secret. The obligation of an agent to keep secret the confidential instructions given by his principal was fully discussed in the Court of Appeal in England in the recent case Weld- Blundell v. Stephens, L. R., 1919, 1 K, B., 520. The plaintiff, who had been asked for a further loan by a company to whom he had already made advances, employed the defendant, an accountant, to investigate the affairs of the company. In a letter which he wrote giving instructions to the defendant, he made statements reflecting on the former manager of the company and other persons connected with it. The defendant handed the letter to his partner for the purpose of pursuing the inquiries asked for by the plaintiff, and the partner having visited the offices of the company, accidentally left the

attaining 20 years of age, enter the employ of the company, and should remain in such employ until the age of 33 years, and any son not complying with the condition was to forfeit his right to such shares, which were to go over to the other sons so complying with the condition, or in the event of all the sons failing to observe the condition to fall into the residue. The testator died in June, 1912. The eldest son entered the service of the company in 1913, being then 18 years of age, and remained in the employment till 15th September, 1914, when he voluntarily joined His Majesty's Forces, in which he had since continuously served. It was proved that having regard to the large fortune to which he was contingently entitled under his father's Will, the company did not pay him the small salary which he had been previously paid, whilst he was serving with the Forces, but never intended nor desired to terminate his services with the company. The Court held that it was not necessary that actual service should be rendered to the company, that the son's employment by the company continued, and that there was only a dis– pensation from actual service during the time that he was employed in His Majesty's Forces, and that provided he obtained his discharge from the army and then returned to actual service for the qualifying period, he would be entitled to the bequest. Landlord and Tenant—Notice to Quit. There is frequently considerable difficulty in the question what notice is necessary to determine a tenancy where the tenant continues as tenant after the expiration of the original term for which property is let. If the agreement is silent as to the notice required, the tenant as a general rule holds as a yearly tenant, and six months' notice expiring on the gale day on which the tenancy commenced is requisite. The difficulty, however, arises in denning in such cases what is the day on which such new tenancy commenced. The case of Croft v. William F. Blay, Ltd., in the May number of the Law Reports, is instructive on the point. By an agreement dated 15th November, 1915,