265 / 736
(B.C.L.), Daniel M. Gahan, Barry St. John Galvin
(B.C.L.), Michael Gleeson (B.C.L.), Blayney C.
Hamilton, Andrew W. Healy, Desmond P. Hogan,
Mary Carmel Kelly, James D. Lavery (B.C.L.,
LL.B.), MicheHe M. Linnane (B.A. (Mod) LL.B.),
Michael J. D. Mangan (B.C.L.), John P. Mathews
(B.C.L., LL.B.), John J. Murphy (B.C.L.), Patrick
Harmon Muriagh (B.A. (Mod)), Roger W. A.
MacGinley (B.A.), Stephen J. MacKenzie (B.C.L.),
Donough H. O'Connor (B.C.L., LL.B.), Fachtna
O'Driscoll (B.C.L.), James M. O'Dwyer (B.C.L.),
Michael O'Hanarhan (B.A.), Timothy N. O'Han-
rahan, Raymond M. O'Neill, Rose Maeve
O'Regan (B.C.L.), James O'Reilly (B.C.L., LL.B.),
Anthony F. O Rourke (B.C.L.), Robin A. Peilow
(B.A.), Elizabeth A. Purcell, Esmond Reilly,
Niall Edward Sheehy (B.C.L., LL.B.).
41 candidates attended;
38 passed.
On the combined results of the Second and
Third
Law
Examinations
the Council
has
awarded a Silver Medal to Patrick J. McCarthy
(B.A.).
GOING TOO FAR?
"I recently received an Air Letter from a firm
of advocates in Tanzania briefly acknowledging
my letter and stating that the partner concerned
'is at present on safari but will be contacting you
upon his return' ". (The Solicitors Journal).
BAR MEETINGS
Not every Dubliner appreciated the significance
of
the gathering of
1,500 Lawyers
from 53
countries'who attended the Twelfth Conference of
the International Bar Association in Ireland last
July. A local lady selling post cards at Trinity
College, asked
two visitors who were wearing
name badges, what meeting they were attending.
On being told she commented "You must be a
boozy lot when you all get together". The lady was
under the imprression that her City was giving
hospitality
to
the
International
Barmans
Conference!
(Solicitors Journal 1968 Vol. 112,
P. 580).
CASES
OF THE MONTH
Criminal Law, Order of proceedings.
The appelant was charged with breaking and
entering contrary to Larceny Act 1916 section 27
(2)
and on conviction was
sentenced
to
six
months
imprisonment. The Defendant had a
medical witness present. The District Justice had
insisted that the medical witness be called before
the prosecutions case had been completed. The
object of his so doing was to cause as little
inconvenience as possible to the Doctor. On the
Appeal it was indicated that the evidence given by
this witness was irrelevant.
The President of the High Court had made an
Order of Certiorari:
the Attorney General ap
pealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
indicated that the insistance of the District Justice
in
calling
the Defence witness
before
the
termination of the prosecution case was a violation
of a basic principle of Justice and the resulting
conviction could not be allowed to stand.
State
(O'Connor) v Larkin, D.
J. Supreme
Court, 19/11/68.
Costs undertaking by solicitor
The Plaintiff and the Defendant had acted in
succession in a matter in which Richard Tynan
had been awarded his costs against the Attorney
General. When the Bill of Costs had been taxed
but before it was paid the Plaintiff claimed that he
had a lien on the amount of the taxed costs in
respect of
the work done by him
in earlier
proceedings for
the prosecutor. The Attorney
General lodged the moneys in the High Court and
the parties now sought to establish their right to
the same.
The Plaintiff subsequently changed his plea and
claimed on the grounds:
(1) that the Defendant had given him his
personal undertaking to discharge fees in respect
of services in earlier litigation.
(2) that the costs recovered in the Stateside
matter should
in equity be paid to him. Both
claims were rejected.
[n regard to (1) the Undertaking had been given
"on behalf of his client" and was not a personal
undertaking.
In
the High Court Mr.
Justice
Kenny took the view that had the Defendant given
his undertaking it would, as both were Oflicers of
the Court, be the Courts duty to enforce it. He
was satisfied that no such undertaking had been
given.
It was held on Appeal to the Supreme Court that
the undertaking was not a personal undertaking
but was expressly on behalf of the client. Accord
ingly it was given as agent not as principal; even
if
there had been a personal undertaking the
remedy was not against the moneys lodged in
Court but in an action for breach of contract.
Concannon
v
Bradshaw,
Supreme Court,
30/1/69.
121