153 / 216
April, 1943]
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society ol Ireland
51
•overruled by the English Court of Appeal,
Greene, M. R. protesting against the idea
that Judges are liable to have their minds
prejudiced by considerations, of the kind
described.
It was, he stated, the duty of
the- Judge, which would be fulfilled, not to
allow the result of one issue to affect his
mind in considering the result of another.
In an earlier case of Carpenter v. Ebbelwhite
(1939 I.K.B. 347 ), one of the Judges, Greer,
L. J., expressed the view that the reason for
the Rule no longer exists in the case of trial
of motor accident cases before Juries having
regard to the fact that every Juror must be
known to be aware of the Statutory provis
ions concerning compulsory insurance by
motorists against third party liability. On
the question of judicial practice it is worth
noting that the two Circuit Judges in Dublin
several years ago made a rule that in cases
being tried before either of them without a
Juty in which money has been paid into
Court with the defence, the amount paid
into Court is to be left blank by the Court
Officials in the copy of the defence attached
to the file of pleadings in Court, so that the
amount paid into Court is not brought to
the attention of the Judge before judgment
has been delivered.
Statutory Notice to Creditors.
We have received a letter from Mr. James
R. Ryan of 9 Harcourt Street, Dublin,
stating that the prevalent practice of pub
lishing the Statutory Notice to Creditors in
the Iris OifigiuiHs based on a misapprehen
sion of the law and is, in fact, an unauthorised
expenditure of funds by an Executor or
Administrator.
He points out
that
the
method of publication is laid down in 22 and
23 Vie. cap. 35, Section 29. By this Section
it is provided that where an Executor or
Administrator shall have given such or the
like notice as in the opinion of the Court
would have been given by the Court of
Chancery
in an Administration suit
for
creditors and others to send in their claims
against the estate, such Executor or Adminis
trator shall at the expiration of the time
named in the said Notice be at liberty to
distribute the assets having regard only to
the claims of which he shall have received
notice.
The present practice of the High
Court
in Administration
Suits,
is
to
direct publication twice each at intervals of
one week in one Dublin and one local news
paper.
Publication is not directed in Iris
Oifigiuil. Mr. Ryan further states that in a
. Bill of Costs in which his firm was concerned
some years ago the expenses of publication
in Iris Oifigiuil were opposed on taxation
and disallowed by
the Taxing Master.
The legal position as to the proper method
of publication appears to be as stated by our
member, but those interested in the matter
will, no doubt, take an opportunity of verify
ing it for themselves. Whether publication
in Iris Oifigiuil is, as he states, an unauthor
ised expenditure of funds by a personal
representative is a point which seems to be
open to argument.
District Court Rules.
The District Court Rules Committee, with
the concurrence of the Minister for Justice,
has made new Rules entitled District Court
Rules, 1942 (S. R. & O., 1942, No. 299)
regulating the procedure under the Enforce
ment of Court Orders Act, 1926 and 1940.
The District Court Rules,
1941
(No.
2)
(S. R. & 0., No. 337 of 1941) are revoked.
The Committee has also made new Rules
entitled District Court Rules, 1942 (No. 2)
(S. R. & O., 1942, No. 144) prescribing forms
to be used in proceedings under Children
Acts, 1908-1941, in lieu of the forms contained
in the Schedules to the Rules made on 31st
July, 1909, under the Children's Act,' 1908.
Decision on Costs—Workmens' Compensation
Rules, 1942.
In the recent case of Behan v. Grand Canal
Company (77.I.L.T.R.36) Judge Davitt had
to decide on an application under Rule 51(7)
of
the Workmen's Compensation Rules,
1942, for additional remuneration over and
above the applicant's scale costs, in view of
additional work entailed in the preparation
and institution of the proceedings due to the
fact that the workman was a person of
unsound mind.
The Respondents at first
denied liability, but after service of the
originating summons had filed a defence
admitting liability to make the maximum
weekly payment and had paid into Court
the full amount of the arrears with the
applicant's appropriate scale costs.
Judge
Davitt held that Rule 51(7) contemplates an
award of costs to a party as a condition
precedent to the allowance of additional
remuneration and that as the applicant was