The Gazette 1907-8

37 / 116

JULY, 1907] The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland. 33
Obituary.
MR. John Philip Kavanagh, Solicitor, died
on the 4th June, 1907, at his residence, 5
Cowper Road, Dublin. Mr. Kavanagh served
his apprenticeship to the late Mr. John E.
Roach, of Dublin, was admitted in HilaryTerm.
1854, and practised in the City of Dublin. For
some years he had retired from practice.
Mr. John Henry Russell, Solicitor, died on
the 1 8th June, 1907, at his residence, Prospect
Villa, Warrenpoint. Mr. Russell served his
apprenticeship to the late Mr. Thomas Carey,
of Newy, was admitted in Trinity Sittings,
1894, and practised in Newry in partnership
with the late Mr. T. B. Sheridan; and after
the death of Mr. Sheridan he continued to
practise under the title of Messrs. Sherdian
and Russell.
Resent Decisions affecting Solicitors.
(Notes ofdecisions, whether in reported or unreported
cases, of interest to Solicitors are invited from
Members.)
KINCS'S BENCH DIVISION.
(Before Madden, Boyd, and Dodd, JJ.)
Hinson v. Buchanan.
April 25, 1907.— Practice—Costs —Review of
taxation—Costs of trial—Recovery #/" money
paid—Special jury.
THIS was an appeal from the Taxing Master.
The plaintiff brought an action for the return
of the price of a motor tricycle, sold to him by
the defendant, on the ground that certain
statements of the defendant forming part of
the contract were untrue, and also on the
ground of fraud. The case was first tried
before a common jury, and resulted in a dis
agreement. It was again tried before a special
jury demanded by the plaintiff, and the jury
found in favour of the defendant. On a new
trial motion the Divisional Court held that,
apart from any fraudulent intention on the
part of the defendant, the plaintiff was en
titled, by reason of the untrue statements of
the defendant, to reject the motor tricycle,
and the Court ordered " that the verdict and
judgment be entered for the plaintiff for the
sum of ^35 with costs, but that the plaintiff
should abide his own costs of the abortive
trial before the Hon. Mr. Justice Wright,
and of the trial before the Right Hon.
Mr. Justice Madden, and of this argument,
the Court being of opinion that the issues
of fraud were irrelevant to the cause of action
in contract, and that the costs of the trial
were altogether largely attributable to such
issues."
Held, that the plaintiff was, by the above
order, only deprived of the costs of the actual
trials, and was entitled to all costs properly
and necessarily incurred by him in preparing
for and getting ready for the trials ;
Held also, that the defendant was entitled to
be refunded by the plaintiff ^iz I2J., paid by
the defendant to the special jury on the second
trial, but that the proper time for applying for
such refund was at the hearing of the new
trial motion, and that, therefore, he should
not be allowed the costs of a motion subse
quently instituted on payment of the amount.
Reported in I.L.T.R., Vol. XLI., page 92.
NOTE.—On Appeal by defendant, the Court
of Appeal, co ng of Walker, C., Fitzgibbon
and Holmes, ., without calling on coun
sel for respo , dismissed the Appeal and
affirmed the order of the K.B.D.
(Before Palles, L.C.B., and Madden, J.)
Mellon v. Tickell.
May i o, 1907.—Practice — Costs — Taxation of
Costs—Two counsel appearingfor party before
Commission to take evidence— Counsel appear
ing on taxation of a bill of costs.
THERE is no general rule that the Taxing
Master should only allow the fee of a single
counsel on behalf of a party before a Commis
sion appointed to take the evidence of a witness.
The matter is entirely in the discretion of the
Taxing Master.
The fee of a counsel appearing on the tax
ation of a bill of costs can only be allowed in
a case where the Taxing Master certifies that
some question of principle was involved.
Palles, L.C.B., in delivering the judgment of
the Court said, "As regards the first item here it
is impossible to say that as a general rule only