152 / 216
THE GAZETTE
OF THE
Inr0rp0rat£ir fain
0f frdanib,
Vol. XXXVI, No. 10]
APRIL, 1943
[
FOR CIRCULATION
•
,
AMONGST MEMBERS
MEETING OP THE COUNCIL.
18th March.
The President in the Chair.
Present :
J. P. Carrigan, V.P. ;
John S.
O'Connor, V.P. ; G. A. Overend ; William J.
Norman; William L. Duggan; William S.
Hayes ; Cecil G. Stapleton ; Henry P. Mayne ;
Scan O hUadhaigh; P. R. Boyd ; Eugene F.
Collins; A. Cox; Patrick F. O'Reilly;
F. J. W. Darley; Roger Greene; Hugh
O'Donnell.
Land Registration Fee Order, 1937.
The Secretary was instructed to write to
the Departments of Justice and Finance
pointing out certain inequitable provisions
in the above Order in the assessment of fees
payable to the Land Registry and requesting
that the matter .should be rectified.
Lease of Solicitors' Buildings.
The House, Library and Finance Com
mittee was authorised to deal with and
conclude the terms of the proposed lease
from the Commissioners of Public Works to
the Society of the Solicitors' Buildings.
OBITUARY.
We regret to have to record the death of
Mr. Jarnes Wood who was known to several
generations of Solicitors as
the Society's
hall-porter and caretaker. He was in the
employment of the Society for almost fifty
years, having been appointed on the 10th
October, 1891 and was a highly esteemed
and popular figure with the profession. He
retired on pension in December, 1939, and
spent the last twelve months in a Nursing
Home in Dublin where he died on the 2nd
April, 1943.
CURRENT TOPICS.
Judges, Juries and Insurance Companies.
No rule of conduct is better known than
that whereby a jury must not be informed
that one of the parties to an action before
them is entitled to be indemnified by an
Insurance Company against any damages
awarded in the action. The Rule is based
upon the fact shown by experience that
juries are liable to be prejudiced if they are
aware that there is in existence such a policy
of insurance.
In the recent English case of
Harman v. Crilly and Others (59.T.L.R.96),
an action for Trial by Judge without a (ury,
it was sought to bring in by" third party
notice an Insurance Company by which the
defendant claimed he was entitled to be
indemnified under a policy of Insurance.
The motion was resisted by the Insurance
Company on the ground,
inter alia,
that the
trial would be likely to be prejudiced if it
were brought to the mind of the Judge that
the defendant was entitled to the benefit of
a contract of Insurance. This objection was