21 / 142
, 1927
The : Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland;
'
17
Solicitor, .died
'
'
'*
Obituary: ;
MR. EDWARD D^'&UNT
upon the 4th July, 1927:
:'
Mr. Hunt was admitted in ttilary Sittings,
1894, and 'practised at Limerick.
MR. FRANCIS G. MACSHERRY, Solicitor,
died upon the 13th July, 1927, at Victoria
Villa, Downpatrick.
Mr'.' MacSherry served his apprenticeship
with Mr. John W. Bell, Downpatrick ;
was
admitted
in Hilary Sittings,
1902,
and
practised at Roscommon.
New Members.
The following have joined the Society :—
Francis S. Collins, 21 St. Andrew Street,
Dublin.
Augustine S. McBreen, Bailieborough.
Recent Legal Decision.
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (ENGLAND).
KING'S BENCH DIVISION. <
Solicitors' Duty to Insured Motorists.
WALSH v. JULIUS WHITE AND BYWATERS.
(Before the Lord Chief Justice and a Special
Jury.)
Mr. Walsh's case was that in December,
1925, he was insured against third-party risks
with the Motor Manufacturers' and Traders'
Mutual Insurance Company, Limited, and
that on December 26, 1925, a Mrs. Clara
Sidders suffered injury through coming into
contact with his-
taxicab' in
the South
Lambeth Road, S.W. Mr. Walsh. notified
the insurance company of the accident, and
in January, 1926, of the fact that Mrs.
Sidders had begun proceedings against him.
In February, 1926, the defendants undertook
the defence of the action on the instructions
of the insurance company, but he alleged
they failed to take certain steps and to attend
certain summonses, with' the result that
interlocutory judgment was signed against
him, the damages being later assessed at
£65
and the costs taxed-at £58 odd.
In July
the Sheriff entered Mr. Walsh's premises and
seized his'gooffs tb-sati'sfy flse-
Mr. Walsh'hadto : ii)ay'him;i£72 odd
•'•-The defendarits'denied-'any^negligeWce'br
bfeach1
of'' duty;' and 'pleaded' :that'- ttey • -naW
riot "been retained by or- on •
be%alf -bf'-Mf.1
Walsh'and had not owed him any'duty-.'
Alternatively, the}' said that they were riot
provided with
the
necessary
fund's'-'to:
continue the defence of
the action, and,'
therefore,
they had
lawfully discharged
themselves from the retainer.
In July, 1928;
the insurance company was'wound up'.'
"••••
During counsel's speeches at the conclusion
of the evidence, his ; Lordship pbirite'd1
out
that from first to last there had not been one ;
word of imputation on the honour 'or; the"
honesty of the defendants.
.,''
;''•'
''"*
The Lord Chief Justice; in summing^'up;''•
.referred to the defendants' contention thaty
in the circumstances of the case,'the- relation-
ship of solicitor and client never existed •'
between them and Mr. Walsh. The position
in which Mr. Walsh had'found himself'Xvas,
he said, that in which every person 'who was'
insured against third-party risks- under a-
common policy of insurance,, found himself
when an accident occurred. 'If an authorita
tive pronouncement of the law were necessary
it was that it mattered not that a solicitor
was introduced to a person by A, B, or C,
or whether he was appointed to-'act directly
by that person, or by. some individual, firm,
or company who was acting as/that person's,,
agent for the purpose. When, ;
a ^solicitor,
undertook the burden and. the,duty of acting,
in proceedings in the name and on behalf of
a person the relationship , of solicitor arid
client was established between the solicitor
and that person.
'..:•'•' :.•;:..>'„•
;
If it were otherwise, what could be'more
inconvenient to use no harsher epithet than
for a solicitor to begin or to1
defend.- pro
ceedings in the name of and on behalf, of a
person who was riot his client1—not only -from
the point of view of that person but also
from that of the other party to the action ?
At every stage of proceedings if a party were
not acting in person his solicitor' Was the
.person on whom documents were served and
to whom notices were given. If the solicitor
were acting with- due and proper - diligence
when notices were received and • documents
were delivered he took the proper steps on