The Gazette 1972

that the unfortunate owner ol the hotel had to purchase

another licence at the cost of over £2,000.

The difficulty is that the revenue authorities issued

the same form of licence in each case. In other words,

hat the recipient gets is a document marked "Publi-

^ n s Licence". There is no reference to a hotel or

anything of this nature on the form.

It is interesting to note in Mr. Shillman's book on the

Lice

g Laws of Ireland

that he states as follows :

"Before the passing of the 1902 Act, the Revenue

Commissioners had authority, under Section 43 (4) of

ffie Inland Revenue Act, 1880, to issue what were then

kno

Wn a s

«Hotel Licences'. But there is now no such

thing as a hotel licence. The licence which can now be

granted to a hotel under Section 2 of the 1902 Act, is

a n

ordinary publican's licence, subject to the provisions

applicable to retailers' licences (see pages 168 to 171).

Accordingly, with respect to such a licence, there is no

prohibition against sales to the general public. This was

decided in Burke's case (1906), where the owner of the

Rhoenix Park Hotel, Dublin, was convicted by a Dublin

Police Magistrate of selling intoxicating liquors to per-

sons not being travellers or lodgers in the hotel, but

conviction was reversed by the King's Bench

Division."

The main effect, of course, of a hotel licence is that

me hotel cannot have a bar.

One can foresee the danger in a case where a solicitor

acting for the purchaser of a hotel completes the sale on

the basis of the hotel having a publican's licence

whereas, in fact, it may only have a hotel licence. In

such a case a bar cannot be operated and the unfortu-

nate solicitor might be open to an action for negligence

in not so advising his client.

Happily the case I mentioned had no come back on

the solicitor involved as his client was a reasonable man.

While the solicitor suggested he might have an action

against the vendor for contracting to sell a publican's

licence whereas, in fact, he had only a hotel licence,

the client expressed the view that this was done by the

vendor in good faith and proceeded to purchase another

licence at a cost of over £2,000.

It might be worth considering putting a note in a

future issue of the

Gazette

to warn our colleagues of the

possible danger and indeed, you might also consider it

appropriate to bring the matter before the Department

of Justice with a view to having some different type of

licence issued in the case of a hotel and which would

clearly on the face of the form indicate the nature of the

licence.

Of course, the whole system of differentiating between

a publican's licence and a hotel licence is rather stupid

and it would be much better just to have the one type

of licence relating to all premises where liquor is con-

sumed on the premises. Being virtually a teetotaler,

perhaps I should not express too strong an opinion.

Dublin Solicitor.

Polio Numbers on Land Commission

Demands

18th November 1971

O'Brien, Esq.,

secretary, Department of Lands,

<4 Upper

Merrion St., Dublin 2.

ar Mr. O'Brien,

I refer to your letter of the 15th February 1971 on

matter of having folio numbers marked on half-

year

ly demands.

I have now received correspondence from a membér

the effect that the folio number has not appeared on

^me November demands.

. Perhaps you would let me know the present position

this matter at your convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Joseph G. Finnegan (Assistant Secretary).

* * *

Department of Lands, Dublin.

30th November 1971.

Joeph G. Finnegan, Esq.,

Assistant Secretary, Incorporated Law Society,

wear Mr. Finnegan,

I have your letter of the 18th instant concerning

Quotation of the folio number on half-yearly demands

lss

*ed for land annuity instalments.

. Since my letter of 15th February, 1971, and as prom-

therein, we have carried out the operations neces-

f o r inclusion of the folio reference as part of the

p t o on these demands and, in general, the current

ue carries the appropriate references.

As you are aware, not all lands charged with a land

purchase annuity, or analogous payment, are registered.

The exceptions fall mainly in the category of lands

purchased under the Acts prior to 1891 before regis-

tration was made compulsory, or in the category where

the fee-simple interest is not yet vested in the purchasing

tenant or allottee. In such cases, of course, the demand

will carry no folio reference as there is none.

There is another situation in which the reference,

though existing, may be lacking in our records. In my

letter of 15th February last (fifth paragraph) I men-

tioned the fact that we cannot guarantee absolute accur-

acy for a folio reference supplied at second hand. That

circumstance may extend to a lack of the folio refer-

ence altogether in a very small percentage of our records

and the November/December 1971 issue, being the first

run of folio annotated demands, we are conscious that

omissions of the past will be reflected in the absence of

the appropriate folio reference in the very odd case,

just as obtained, I should emphasise, in the era of the

ten-yearly receivable order. We hope to correct the

record as far as possible according as these exceptional

instances are brought to light and we have provided

the necessary systems to that end.

The case at issue is, I am sure, accounted for by one

or other of the exceptional situations referred to. If you

care to let me have particulars—the reference numbers

of the offending demands—I will have the matter

investigated fully.

Yours sincerely,

T. O'Brien (Secretary).