115 / 298
GAZETTE
APRIL 1981
to make proper provision for the Plaintiff in accordance
to receive a one-third share of the testator's estate would
not constitute proper provision.
In her view
"Farming is the only occupation known to the plaintiff
jince the age of 14. He was always encouraged to
believe that the farm would be his. He was dis-
couraged from leaving home when he married.
Therefore the testator owed a moral duty to the
plaintiff to make proper provision for him and provide
him with a means of livelihood from farming reason-
ably comparable with what he enjoyed before the
death of the testator. The life style which they enjoyed
was not one of luxury. It was one of hard unremitting
work. It would not have discharged the testator's
moral duty to le^ve the minimum amount of land from
which a living might or might not be wrested.
Adequacy is not the test. There must be proper
provision in accordance with the testator's means. The
living which the plaintiff could make from the land
should in this case be reasonably comparable with
what he enjoyed prior to his father's death."
Having regard to the circumstances of the plaintiff and of
the two defendants and of the manner in which the
testator's lands were laid out, the learned Judge made an
allocation of the testator's lands and other assets which
gave the Plaintiff, first, the house and all its contents, all
personal effects of the deceased, all farm machinery, the
car and all the stock on the farm and, second, the major
part of the lands. The remaining land, which the Judge
considered would cause least damage to the farm by its
loss, she directed should be transferred to the defendants,
free from incumbrances, as tenants in common. This, she
considered, would leave the defendants with a reasonably
saleable unit and she further allocated to the defendants
all the mones to credit of the deceased's bank accounts.
Having considered whether further distinction should
be made between the two defendants, the learned Judge
concluded that it should not.
Finally, the learned and humane Judge directed that
the various parties should bear their own costs. •
DISTRICT COURT
LICENSING
APPLICATIONS
Requirements in Relation to Special
Exemptions
The Dublin Solicitors' Bar Association has been liaising
with the President of the District Court as to his require-
ment concerning certain information in all Applications
for Special Exemptions.
The President has indicated that in relation to any
premises in respect of which a Special Examption is
sought, he will wish to know what particular room or area
of the premises is intended to be the subject of the Special
Exemption, e.g. the main restaurant, the first floor
functions room, the "Georgian Boudoir," etc.
For Your Diary . . .
2 July 1981: Solicitors' Golfing Society:
President's Prize
Golf Outing.
Milltown Golf Club.
10-11 July 1981: Law Society Seminar:
Computers for
Solicitors.
Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.
14 July 1981: Law Society
Presentation of Parchments,
Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.
24-28 August 1981:
Young Lawyers
International
Association
XIX Congress, Dublin. Full programme
now - available from Secretariat, XIX Congress of
AIJA, 44 Northumberland Rd., Ballsbridge, Dublin 4.
Tel. 688244.
1-4 September, 1981:
Law and Society in Ireland:
An
International Conference, Trinity College, Dublin.
Speakers:
Professor William J. Chambliss on law and
process, Professor Albert K. Cohen on law and crime,
Dr. Masud Hoghughi on juvenile justice and social
control, Professor Nils Christie on diversification of
penal control, Chief Probation Officer Graham Smith
on community corrections. Application forms are
available from the Conference Organisers, School of
Law, Trinity College, Dublin 2.
12 October 1981: Law Society
Commencement of Sixth
Professional Course.
28 October 1981: Law Society
Presentation
of
Parchments,
Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.
FAMILY HOME
PROTECTION ACT
Absence of Supporting Evidence to Spouses
Consent
The Conveyancing Committee has been asked for
guidance by a number of practitioners as to the proper
approach to be made by purchaser's solicitor where, on
investigation of the title of an unregistered property, an
assurance of a family home made after the 12th July,
1976 appears on the title and, although the assurance
bears a consent completed by the vendor's spouse, there is
no supporting evidence identifying the consenting party as
the spouse of the vendor.
The Committee is satisfied that the present practice of
seeking a statutory declaration from the vendor and the
consenting spouse exhibiting a copy of their marriage
certificate to evidence the identity of the consenting party
was not adopted immediately after the introduction of the
Act and takes the view that, in the ordinary way, a pur-
chaser's solicitor should not, where there is a spouse's
consent endorsed on an assurance of the family home
executed prior to the 1st January 1978, and no
supporting evidence of the identity of the consenting
spouse is available, requisition any further evidence.
I 15