The Gazette 1910-11

105 / 114

APRIL, 1911 ] the Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. 209
defended, and there was no appearance for
the respondent. A decree was granted, and
evidence having been given that the respon
dent had considerable property of her own, '
an Order was made that the respondent
should pay the petitioner's costs of the
proceedings.
DONEGAL SPRING ASSIZES, 1911.
(Before Holmes L.J.)-
Patrick Benar and H. T. Gallagher v. The
Stranorlar District Council.
March 16, 1911.—Labourers (Ireland) Acts
and Orders—Costs of furnishing title to
District Council—Labourers (Ireland)
Order, 1910.
APPEAL by the defendants against decree
granted by His Honor Judge Cooke, K.C.,
for the fee of two guineas claimed under the
Labourers (Ireland) Order, 1909, in respect
of furnishing, prior to the date of the
Labourers (Ireland) Order, 1910, title upon
behalf of a judicial tenant from year to year,
portion of whose holding had been acquired
by the District Council under the Labourers
(Ireland) Acts.
Held on appeal, affirming the decree
granted by the County Court Judge, that the
Labourers (Ireland) Order, 1910, is not
retrospective in effect, and', accordingly, that
it does not apply to the costs for work done
prior to its date.
Holmes L.J., in affirming the decree,
said :—I affirm the decree of the County
Court Judge in this case. The Order of 1909
allowing a Solicitor for a lessee or owner to
exercise his option and take two guineas in-
lieu of his taxed costs was in force at the date
at which Mr. Gallagher brought his process,
and is still in force. Under that Order Mr.
Gallagher exercised his option, as he was
entitled to do, provided Patrick Benar was
a lessee at the time the work was done, as
he admittedly was under the decision of
Panes C.B. in Elliott v. Stranorlar R. D. C.
That being so, Mr. Gallagher was entitled,
beyond question, to his two guineas when he
issued his process, and the Council's sole
contention is that the Order of 1910 relates
back so as to make Patrick Benar an occupier
and not a lessee from the very beginning of
the proceedings. This Order has no such
effect. It cannot retrospectively affect
cases in which proceedings have been taken
before its issue and which are pending, and
the right to succeed here depends on the
right to succeed at the time the proceedings
were begun. I am also of opinion that an
Order of this sort made under the Labourers
Acts cannot affect the legal status or the
rights of the parties retrospectively whatever
effect it may have upon procedure, and that
this Order does not operate to convert
Patrick Benar from a lessee into an occupier
for the purpose of depriving his Solicitor of
the two guineas fee to which he is entitled.
NOTE.—The decision of the County Court
Judge in above case appeared in GAZETTE
of November, 1910.
COURT OF APPEAL (ENGLAND).
(Before Cozens-Hardy M. tcher Moulton
and Buckley .)
Simmons v. Liberal Opinio .) ; Re Dunn.
Feb. 22, 1911.—Solicitor—Retainer to conduct
defence to an action—Company—Non
registration— Implied warranty of
existence of authority—Liability of
Solicitor to pay plaintiff's costs.
THIS was an appeal from Darling J. The
matter arose out of an action of Simmons v.
Liberal Opinion (Limited). The plaintiff
obtained a verdict for £5,000 damages, and
judgment for this amount was entered
against Liberal Opinion (Limited). At the
conclusion of the trial application was made
on behalf of the plaintiff that the Solicitors
for the defendants, Messrs. Dunn, Baker
and Co. should be asked to show cause why
they should not be made personally respon
sible for the plaintiff's costs, on the ground
that the defendants were not a limited
company, as stated in the pleadings, and
that, therefore, Messrs. Dunn, Baker and Co.
had improperly accepted instructions to
appear for them in that capacity. Darling J.,
came to the conclusion that Mr. Dunn had
authority to act for certain defendants who
carried on business under the style of Liberal
Opinion (Limited), and it, therefore, could
not be said that he had no clients. The
application therefore failed, each party to pay
their own costs. The plaintiff appealed.