9 / 70
MAY, 19191
The Gazette ol the Incorporated Law Society ot Ireland.
attaining 20 years of age, enter the employ of
the company, and should remain in such
employ until the age of 33 years, and any
son not complying with the condition was to
forfeit his right to such shares, which were
to go over to the other sons so complying
with the condition, or in the event of all the
sons failing to observe the condition to fall
into the residue. The testator died in June,
1912. The eldest son entered the service of
the company in 1913, being then 18 years of
age, and remained in the employment till
15th September, 1914, when he voluntarily
joined His Majesty's Forces, in which he had
since continuously served.
It was proved
that having regard to the large fortune to
which he was contingently entitled under his
father's Will, the company did not pay him
the small salary which he had been previously
paid, whilst he was serving with the Forces,
but never intended nor desired to terminate
his services with the company. The Court
held that it was not necessary that actual
service should be rendered to the company,
that the son's employment by the company
continued, and that there was only a dis–
pensation from actual service during the time
that he was employed in His Majesty's
Forces, and that provided he obtained his
discharge from the army and then returned
to actual service for the qualifying period, he
would be entitled to the bequest.
Landlord and Tenant—Notice to Quit.
There is frequently considerable difficulty
in the question what notice is necessary to
determine a
tenancy where
the
tenant
continues as tenant after the expiration of the
original term for which property is let.
If
the agreement is silent as to the notice
required, the tenant as a general rule holds
as a yearly tenant, and six months' notice
expiring on the gale day on which the
tenancy
commenced
is
requisite.
The
difficulty, however, arises in denning in such
cases what is the day on which such new
tenancy commenced. The case of
Croft
v.
William F. Blay, Ltd.,
in the May number of
the Law Reports, is instructive on the point.
By an agreement dated 15th November, 1915,
certain premises were let for one year and
one-eighth of a year from llth November,
1915, at the yearly rent of ^40, payable
quarterly on the usual quarter days. The
first payment of rent, amounting to
£5,
was
paid on the 25th December, 1915, being for
the one-eighth or half-quarter ending on that
date.
Thereafter
the
tenant paid
the
quarter's rent on the usual quarter days, and
the term of the original letting having come
to an end on the 25th December, 1916, the
tenant remained on and was accepted as a
continuing tenant.
Thereby the tenancy
became an ordinary yearly tenancy. On the
8th June, 1917, the tenant gave notice to
quit for the 25th December, 1917, treating
the tenancy as commencing at Christmas.
The landlord objected that the tenancy
should be treated as one commencing on
llth November, the date of the commence–
ment of the original letting, and that, there–
fore, he was entitled to have the tenancy
determined only by a notice expiring on the
llth November, 1918. The Court held that
the tenancy was a Christmas tenancy, and
the notice given to expire on the 25th
December, 1917, was valid. The case, which
contains
an
exhaustive
review
of
the
authorities on the subject, should be read.
(L. R., 1919, 1 Ch. 277.)
Confidential Communications—Duty to keep
secret.
The obligation of an agent to keep secret
the confidential instructions given by his
principal was fully discussed in the Court of
Appeal in England in the recent case
Weld-
Blundell v. Stephens,
L. R., 1919, 1 K, B., 520.
The plaintiff, who had been asked for a
further loan by a company to whom he had
already made
advances,
employed
the
defendant, an accountant, to investigate the
affairs of the company.
In a letter which he
wrote giving instructions to the defendant,
he made statements reflecting on the former
manager of the company and other persons
connected with it. The defendant handed the
letter to his partner for the purpose of
pursuing the inquiries asked for by the
plaintiff, and the partner having visited the
offices of the company, accidentally left the