101 / 110
APRIL
1913J
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society ol Ireland.
113
Legal Appointment.
Mr. Patrick Lavery, Solicitor, of Armagh,
has been appointed Registrar to the County
Court Judge of the County of Kerry.
County Courts (Ireland) Bill.
THE following has appeared in the Parlia
mentary Papers :—
»
Q. Mr. Charles Craig.—To ask the Chief
Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
if he will state what steps, if any, he has
taken towards giving effect to the recom
mendations of the county court judges and
the Incorporated Law Society
re
proposed
reforms in county court procedure in Ireland :
if he has received the resolutions passed by
the Associated Chambers of Commerce in
Ireland on the same subject; and what steps
he intends taking to give effect to them.
[Wh March,
1913.]
A. Mr. Birrell.—I have
received
the
resolutions
referred
to.
The Report
in
question is under consideration, but I am not
yet in a position to make any statement on
the subject.
[13th March,
1913.[
.
Recent Decisions affecting Solicitors.
(Notes of decisions, whether in reported or
unreported cases, of interest to Solicitors,
are invited from Members.)
KING'S BENCH DIVISION (ENGLAND).
(Before Bucknill, J.)
VINE
T.
NATIONAL MOTOR CAB COMPANY
(LIMITED) AND ANOTHER.
Feb. 22, 1913.—
Practice—Costs
—
Two defen
dants
—
Plaintiff successful against one
defendant—Costs payable
to
successful
defendant recoverable from unsiiccessful
defendant.
THE plaintiff sued the two defendant com
panies
to
recover damages
for personal
injuries sustained by him owing
to
the
negligence of the defendants' servants or the
servants of one of them. At the trial the jury
found that the accident was solely due to the
negligence of
the servants of
the
first
defendants, against whom they awarded the
plaintiff £250 damages, and they exonerated
the servants of the London General Omnibus
Company, the second defendants, from all
blame.
Mr. Justice Bucknill. in giving judgment,
said that the question he had to consider was
whether the proper order to make was that
the plaintiff should recover from the unsuc
cessful defendants the costs which he would
be compelled to pay to the London General
Omnibus Company, who had been successful
in the action as against him.
In order to
determine this question he must consider what
was the attitude taken up by the unsuccessful
defendants. His Lordship reviewed the cir
cumstances of the case, and said that when
the plaintiff's Solicitors wrote before action
to the National Motor Cab Company, the
latter, in replying, should have said something
which would have been a guide
to
the
plaintiff as to whether he ought to join the
London General Omnibus Company
as
defendants or not. The plaintiff, with his
limited knowledge of the facts, was entitled
to bring an action against both the defen
dants ;
but the first defendants, when they
were applied to by the plaintiff, ought to have
said whether they alleged negligence against
the omnibus company or not. There would
be judgment for the plaintiff against the
National Motor Cab Company for £250 and
costs, and judgment for the London General
Omnibus Company against the plaintiff with
costs ;
such costs, however, must be paid to
the plaintiff by the National Motor Cab
Company.
(Reported
The Times Law Reports,
Vol.
XXIX., page 311.)
KING'S BENCH DIVISION (ENGLAND).
(Before Channell, Bray, and Coleridge, JJ.)
In re
A SOLICITOR ;
Exparle
THE LAW
SOCIETY.
March 12, 1913.—
Solicitor—Professional mis
conduct—Solicitor's
interest
in
debt-
collecting business
—
Champertous arrange
ment.
THE Law Society found that the respondent,
by his interest in and connection with a debt-
collecting association, had been guilty of
professional misconduct.
H°.ld,
that this finding was right, but that
as the respondent, on becoming aware that