11 / 114
MAY, 1913]
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
services rendered to me by Thos. W. Wright
and Chas. T. Kennedy, do charge in favour
of said (plaintiffs)
.
.
:
the hereditaments
.
.
.
with the principal sum of £50 repay–
able on demand,
together with
interest
thereon at the rate of £4 per cent, per ann.
..." The defendant in her affidavit denied
that she had ever been
furnished with
particulars of the costs, or that she had been
furnished with a bill of costs on Feb. 22, 1909,
and she accordingly moved for an order that
the plaintiffs should deliver to her full and
detailed particulars of their bills of costs for
which the said deed of charge was given, and
for an account.
The Court made the following order :
" It is ordered that it be referred to Chambers
to
take
the
following account viz., an
account of what sum is due to the plaintiffs
for principal and interest on foot of the deed
of charge, dated Feb. 22, 1909 (&c.), and it is
further ordered that the Chief Clerk in taking
said account is to have regard to s. 4 of the
Solicitors Act, 1870, and to ascertain if any
agreement has been entered into between the
plaintiffs and the defendant, and it is further
ordered that in case there is any such agree–
ment the Chief Clerk be at liberty to refer it
to one of the Taxing Masters to determine
whether
such
agreement
is
fair
and
reasonable."
(Reported
I.L.T.R.,
Vol. 47, p 95).
KING'S BENCH DIVISION.
(Before Palles, L.C.B., and Kenny, J.)
REX (ALLEN)
v.
JUSTICES OF Co. CORK.
April 17, 1913.
Justices—Practising Solici
tor—Refusal to hear
Mandamus
Form
of writ—U &
15
Vict., c.
93, s. 9.
A Solicitor, during the hearing of his case
at Petty Sessions, made remarks to which the
Justices objected. On his refusal to with–
draw the remarks the Justices refused to hear
him further. At the next Petty Sessions the
Justices refused to allow him to address the
Court:
Held, mandamus
lies
to command
the
Justices to admit and
hear a Solicitor
engaged in a case before them.
Application to make absolute a conditional
order of
mandamus,
dated Feb. 24, 1913,
directing
the
Justices who presided at
Queenstown Petty Sessions, on Feb. 17, 1913,
to hear the said Atwell Hayes Alien as
Solicitor in certain cases, and " in all such
other cases and causes in the future as he the
said Atwell Hayes Alien may appear before
them, or any of them, as Solicitor for or on
behalf of his clients in such cases and causes."
On Feb. 10, 1913, Alien, a duly qualified
Solicitor, was engaged professionally in a
case at Queenstown Petty Sessions. During
the hearing of the case Alien made certain
remarks to which the Justices objected, and
which they asked him to withdraw.
He
refused to withdraw them. The Justices then
declined to hear him further as Solicitor, and
requested him to leave the Court :
he left
the Court. On Feb. 11, 1913, the following
letter was addressed to the Justices attending
the Queenstown Sessions Court : " Court–
house, Queenstown, Feb. 11, 1913.
Dear
Sir, I have been directed by the Justices
sitting at Queenstown Petty Sessions on 10th
to request that you will be good enough to
attend a meeting of the magistrates of this
Petty Sessions District to be held in the
Courthouse at 10.30 a.m., on Wednesday,
12th instant, for the purpose of discussing the
action of Mr. Alien, Solicitor,
in making
certain improper observations towards the
Bench of Magistrates assembled here on
Monday last and the magistrates of the
district generally. I am, sir, your obedient
servant, F. St. M. Heney, C,P.S."
The
Justices attended a meeting on Wednesday,
Feb. 12, and passed a resolution that they
would not allow Mr. Alien to practise as a
Solicitor at the Queenstown Petty Sessions
until he withdrew the statement he had made.
On Feb. 17, 1913, Alien was engaged pro–
fessionally at Queenstown Petty Sessions.
He claimed the right to address the Court,
but the Justices present refused to hear him,
and he withdrew from the Court.
Palles, L.C.B., in giving judgment, said
that for Justices, jn face of 14 & 15 Vict.,
c. 93, s. 9, to say that they could exclude a
Solicitor from the Court generally
in futuro
was
unjustifiable.
The
form
of
the
mandamus
in the conditional order was in
too general terms. The Court would grant
a
mandamus.
KENNY, J., concurred.
The. material portion of the order made by
the Court was as follows: And on Counsel for
the prosecutor applying that the conditional