The Gazette 1981

GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1981

Registration

of Births,

Deaths and

Marriages

In the July/August 1980 issue of the

Gazette

there was

published a directive from the General Register Office,

Custom House, Dublin 1, suggesting that, due to the

considerable waiting period in the issue of certificates

from the General Register Office, applications be sent in

writing to the Superintendent Registrar of Births, Deaths

and Marriages for the County in which the event

occurred.

The position in regard to non-Roman Catholic

marriage certificates has been clarified in a letter dated 22

December 1980 received from Mr. Brendan Hensey, Ard

Chlaraitheoir, in the course of which he states:

"Superintendent Registrars have custody of completed

which take place in their area and have no functions with

regard to the issue of certificates of non-Catholic

marriages.

"The system of registering non-Catholic marriages

varies and is somewhat complicated. The question of

where a person might obtain a certificate, other than ffom

the General Register Office, is dependent on the nature of

the marriage, e.g. marriage by religious ceremony,

marriage in the presence of a Registrar of Marriages or

marriage by civil ceremony by a Registrar of Marriages.

As a general rule, certificates of non-Catholic marriages

can be obtained from the General Register Office after the

quarterly returns of marriages have been received, which

is usually about six weeks after the expiration of the

quarter in which the marriage takes place. In the case of a

non-Catholic marriage by religious ceremony, certificates

would also be obtainable from the clergy attached to the

church or building in which the marriage was celebrated.

If the marriage was performed by civil ceremony or in the

presence of the Registrar of Marriages, a certificate could

be obtained from the Registrar."

Arrears in General Register Office

Mr. Hensey also states in his letter that the situation

with regard to arrears of work in the General Register

Office has improved considerably since the directive was

issued, but there is still a waiting period of a few weeks for

certificates. He states that while arrears should be cleared

soon, if the attention of the General Register Office is

drawn to any applications of special urgency every effort

will be made to deal with them quickly.

PRACTICE MEMORANDUM

ON THE ISSUING AND

SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS

Practice Memorandum from the President of the High

Court Concerning the Issuing and Service of Subpoenas

and their Period of Effectiveness.

in a practice memorandum recently issued by the

President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Finlay, it is

provided that a subpoena issued in respect of an action for

a particular term need not under any circumstances be re-

issued merely because of the adjournment of the action,

and the subpoena must be deemed, having regard to the

provisions of the Rules of the Superior Courts (O. 39, R

25 to 34, and Forms I, 2 and 3 in Appendix D) to be

effective for a hearing in the following or later term.

The full text of the President's practice memorandum

is as follows:

Having regard to the provisions of Order 39, Rules 25

to 34 inclusive, and to Forms Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in

Appendix D of the Rules it does not appear that there is

any statutory prohibition against the effectiveness of a

subpoena issued for and in respect of the trial of an action

in one particular term where that action has been post

poned or adjourned to a later term.

Since as a practical matter, although the subpoena

requires the attendance of the witness on a particular day

and so on from day to day until the cause is tried solici

tors universally inform the witness of the particular day

which has been fixed for the hearing of the case, no incon-

venience, injustice or abuse could arise from dispensing

with the practice which has heretofore been observed in

the Central Office of requiring the issue of a new

subpoena where the action for which a subpoena was

originally issued has been postponed or adjourned to a

later term.

I am therefore satisfied that this practice may now be

discontinued and that a subpoena issued in respect of an

action for a particular term need not under any circum

stances be re-issued merely because of the adjournment of

the action, and must be deemed having regard to the

provisions of the Rules to be effective for a hearing in the

following or later term.

A consideration of the Rules would also indicate that

there is no statutory prohibition or bar to the issue of a

subpoena in one particular term made returnable for an

action not to commence until the following term. If, there

fore, solicitors seek the issue of a subpoena in any parti

cular term for an action which has been fixed to

commence in the succeeding term the Central Office can

issue such subpoena, the date of course being the date of

the commencement of that term or of the list in which the

action is on that term.

This ruling applies to both subpoena

ad testificandum

and to subpoena

duces tecum.