254 / 294
and make good the surface. Although the Department
had statutory power to lay the cable, they nevertheless
obtained formal consent from the County Council for
the work—but this was unnecessary
It follows that the County Council is not responsible
for the negligence of the Department of Posts and Tele-
graphs. Circuit Court judgment affirmed. Appeal dis-
missed
[Johnston v Kilkenny Co. Council; Teevan J.;
unreported; 6th July 1970.]
High Court ruling in drink case—order discharged.
In the High Court in Dublin yesterday Mr Justice
Murnaghan held that it was within the jurisdiction of a
District Justice not to grant an adjournment in a case
because a case of similar type was under an appeal to
the Supreme Court.
He refused to make absolute a conditional Order of
Prohibition which had been directed to District Justice
Donnchadh Ua Donnchacha, ordering him to show
cause why he should continue with the summary hear-
ing of a charge brought against James Llewellyn, of
Elm Road, Donnycarney, Dublin, in view of the fact
that an appeal in a case of a similar nature was pending
before the Supreme Court
Mr Llewellyn is charged with having driven a motor
car while his body contained a quantity of alcohol such
that within three hours after driving the car the concen-
tration of alcohol in his blood would exceed 125 milli-
grammes to 100 millilitres of blood.
The validity of the Road Traffic Act on this point
under the Constitution was challenged in the High
Court, but the President of the High Court (Mr. Justice
O'Keeffe) dismissed the case, and an appeal to the
Supreme Court is now pending.
Mr. Llewellyn sought the adjournment of the charge
against him on the grounds that the issues raised in the
case pending before the Supreme Court were directly
in point in the case against himself and that, if the
District Justice proceeded with the hearing of the sum-
mary charge against him, he (Mr. Llewellyn) would be
deprived of the view of the Supreme Court on the
validity of the law under which he was charged.
The District Justice had said he felt obliged to pro-
ceed with the hearing because there had been a deter-
mination of the matter in the other proceedings before
the High Court. An Order of Prohibition had then been
sought.
Mr. E. M. Walsh, S.C. (for Mr. Llewellyn), said that
the district justice had adjourned the hearing of the
case against Mr. Llewellyn when his attention had
been drawn to the fact that a High Court action was
pending in a similar matter. That action had been dis-
missed, but, when told that an appeal was pending, the
district justice had indicated that he was not prepared
to grant another adjournment.
A conditional Order of Prohibition was subsequently
granted to Mr. Llewellyn, on whose behalf it had been
submitted that in effect the adjudication determining
the amount of alcohol came from the analyst's certi-
ficate and that it could not be challenged.
Mr. Walsh said that a substantial amount of law had
yet to be argued in these proceedings—it was for the
Supreme Court to decide the propriety of convicting or
acquitting.
Mr. D. P. Sheridan, S.C., for the District Justice, said
that the presumption was that any legislation passed by
the Oireachtas was constitutional until the contrary
was shown. It would be an invasion of the jurisdiction
of a District Justice not to allow him to proceed wah the
hearing.
Mr Justice Murnaghan, discharging the conditional
order, said that he was afraid that at the Bar judgments
of the High Court were not always regarded with the
solemnity they deserved. It was more or less taken for
granted that the Supreme Court would set the judg-
ment aside. That was not the situation. A judgment of
the High Court was a serious matter and was the law.
What he was being asked to do in this case was to say
that the district justice must exercise his discretion in
this case by granting the adjournment. It seemed to
him, said Mr. Justice Murnaghan, that he was to
decide whether, in doing what he did, the district
justice was acting without jurisdiction He was satisfied
that the district justice was acting within that juris-
diction.
£20,000 bail reduced by half.
Hugh Meenan, of Barrack Street, Cork, and of Li&cloon,
Shanfallan, Derry, who is charged with armed robbery
from the Cobh branch of Allied Irish Banks Ltd.,
applied in the High Court, in Dublin, to have his bail
reduced.
Meenan had been allowed personal bail of £10,000
and one independent surety of £10,000. Mr. Justice
Murnaghan varied the order and directed that he be
admitted to bail in two independent sureties of £5,000
each. Mr. Justice Murnaghan said that Meenan was
charged with a very serious offence which must, in
present circumstances, carry quite a heavy sentence if
he were convicted.
Mr. Meenan is charged with conspiracy to rob the
bank and, with two others, being armed with a Webley
and Scott pistol, on August 24 last, robbing Godfrey
F. J. Bernal of £9,200.
Mr. Gordon Hayes, solicitor, for Mr. Meenan, read
an affidavit by his client in which he said he had been
in custody since August 26. He believed all the money,
except about £100, had been recovered. He required
bail to enable him to put his domestic and financial
affairs in order.
Office of the Revenue Commissioners
ESTATE DUTY BRANCH
Dublin 2
INLAND REVENUE AFFIDAVIT FORM A1
In connection with deaths on and after 19th April
1972 Form A1 may be used for estates which do
not exceed £5,000 gross value provided that the
other conditions for use of this form are fulfilled.
The limit of £3,000 continues to apply to deaths
prior to 19th April 1972.
- 2 5 8