113 / 736
form of a joint meeting with the Association of
Child Psychologists and Child Psychiatrists of
Ireland and was entitled "The Young Offen
der". The
speaker was Professor T. C. M.
Gibbens, M.B.E., M.D.
(Camb.) D.P.M Pro
fessor of Forensic Psychiatry, University of Lon
don
DISTRICT JUSTICE PATRICK J. LOFTUS
The Solicitors practising in District Court Area
No. 4 gave a Dinner to District Justice Loftus in
the Central Hotle Ballyhaunis on the 17th Feb
ruary. The attendance was most representative of
Counties Galway, Leitrim, Mayo, and Roscom-
mon. Mr. James P. Glynn, President of
the
Galway Bar Association was in the chair. District
Justices Gilvarry, McGahon and Sheerin and the
Minister for Health Mr. Sean M. Flanagan were
present. Lay Commissioner John Kelly was un
avoidably absent.
CASES OF THE MONTH
Construction of "Necessitous" Relatives
T left property to his executors on trust to dis
tribute the income for the period of ten years
from his death, among such of his "necessitous
nieces and nephews (alive at the date of my death
and such of their children" as the executors should
think fit. On an application by the executors for
the determination of questions relating to
the
construction of the will,
held,
(1) that the trust
was not void for uncertainty, since "necessitous"
meant necessitous according to the circumstances
in life of the individual whose elegibility fell for
consideration; (2) that the income was not to be
confined to nephews and nieces who were neces
sitous at T's death;
(3)
that the children of
necessitous nephews and nieces qualified as mem
bers of the class whom the executors might select,
whether or not those children were necessitous;
and (4) that the possible fluctuation of the class
during the ten year period did not make the trust
void for uncertainty.
(Kilroy and Callan v Parker and McGarvan
[1966] I. R. 309).
Assessment of Damages :
for Negligence :
The Plaintiff was injured in the cause of his
employment and instructed the defendant solicitor
to make a claim against the employer; the solicitor
failed to take action timeously, the claim became
statute barred and the pursuer sued the solicitor
for professional negligence. It was agreed that if
the employer had been found negligent, damages
on the basis of full liability would have been
£3000. The Lord Ordinary of Scotland held that
the pursuer had not succeeded in showing that
his employer was to blame, but he held that a
jury might have found in favour of the pursuer.
On appeal to the Outer House,
held,
that in this
type of action it was relevant for the judge to
consider the position as at the date when the
action against the employer should have been
raised and notwithstanding his own view on the
evidence tendered in the action agaist the solici
tor where the plaintiff had a case which could
reasonably have been formulated against the em
ployer, to take into consideration that the action
might have been settled by the acceptance by the
plaintiff of an offer from the employer; damages
of £1000 awarded.
(Yeoman's Executrix v Ferriers 1967 S.L.T.
332).
Order for Costs against Solicitors :
Two actions were struck out because of an in
excusable delay by the plaintiff's solicitors. After
unsuccessful appeals the solicitors were heard as
to costs.
Held,
(1)
that in the first action the
solicitors should be required to undertake to pay
the plaintiff's costs in the action and such costs
as she might be ordered to pay the defendants
in the action and in third party proceedings by
the defendants; and (2) that in the second action,
there being no request by the plaintiff for an
order against
the solicitors personally, and no
undertaking being offered since it would consti
tute a breach of the conditions in the solicitors'
insurance policy, no order should be made.
(Alien v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons; Stern-
berg v Hammond [1968] 112 S. J. 72).
Injunction to Restrain Breaches of Covenant :
When a landlord's writ claims possession and,
without prejudice to such claim, an injunction
restraining the tenant from doing certain acts on
the premises, there has not been an unequivocal
demand for possession operating as a final election
to determine the lease and the landlord may pro
ceed at the trial on the basis that the lease still
subsists and so obtain the injunction.
Landlords issued a writ claiming, inter alia,
possession of premises demised
to
the
tenant,
mene profits and without prejudice
to
those
claims
injunctions restraining the tenant from
doing certain acts which would apparently be in
breach of covenants in the lease. They then moved,
pending trial, for the injunctions. The defendants
93