475 / 736
CORRESPONDENCE
Incorporated Law Society of Ireland
The Solicitors' Building
Four Courts,
Dublin 7, Ireland.
M/3/70
German Association of Advocates.
Hamburg,
14th May, 1970.
MATTER—EXCHANGE OF CHILDREN BETWEEN
GERMANY AND IRELAND
Most Honoured Colleague,
For several years I have endeavoured
to arrange
through
the Law Society of England and Wales an
exchange of Children of German and English Lawvers
during the holidays. It has has now struck me whether
it would be possible
for us
to undertake a similar
exchange with the daughter of an Irish colleague. I
therefore turn to vou in the ho^e that it mav be possible
for you to arrange such an exchange during the holidays.
We are concerned about the 14 year old daughter
Susan of our colleague Wolfgang Heenen, 4224 Hiinxe,
Minnekenstege 57. She would very much like to come
for a few weeks to a colleague in Dublin who would
have a daughter of the same age preferably between the
18th July and 5th September. Our colleague Mr.
Heenen would be prepared to receive into his family the
daughter of an Irish colleague either at the same time
or in some other year. Apart from the aforementioned
daughter Mr. Wolfeang Heenen has
two sons of 16
and 17 vears of age.
It would please me if you would happen to know
amongst
your Dublin
colleagues
someone
whose
daughter would like
to undertake an exchange with
Susan Heenen and and who would be interested to go to
Germany for several weeks and stay with our colleague
Mr. Heenen. As there is not very much time before the
beginning of the summer holidays to make preparations,
I would suggest that if this proposition is acceptable you
should get directly in touch with Mr. Heenen.
Yours sincerely,
(DR. JURGEN CHEMNITZ)
Director.
Any member interested in this proposal is asked
to write to the Secretary incorporated Law Society
of Ireland.
Dear Sir,
JUDGMENT MOTION
We act for the Plaintiffs in this matter. The Debtor
owed them a sum of £841 odd and on 2nd December
last or shortly afterwards the Summary Summons was
issued by the Central Office. The Endorsement of Claim
was as follows. "The Plaintiffs claim is for the sum of
£841/16/8d. amount due for rroods sold and delivered
by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant, his servants or aeents
within the last six years detailed particulars of which
have already been furnished to the the Defendant AND
also due upon an account stated and settled."
An appearance was entered by the Defendant and he
asked for a month's grace to pay the account through
his solicitors. Rather reluctantly our clients agreed to
this and gave him until the 30th of January so that he
had in all very nearly two months time in which to pay.
When payment was not forthcoming we sent the papers
to our Town Agent on 18th of February. These included
the usual Form of Affidavit made by the Plaintiffs
secretary averring that the amount of the account was
due for goods sold and delivered and that the appearance
had been entered solely for the purnose of delay. A
week later our Town Agent informed us that it was
necessary to give detailed particulars of the claim in
the Affidavit and we had a fresh Affidavit prepared with
a detailed Statement of Account marked as an Exhibit
and completed by the Plaintiffs secretary. The amended
Affidavit was returned
to our Town Agent on 26th
February.
Our Town Agent informed us that the matter came
before the Master on the 19th of March and that while
all the necessarv Affidavits were in order the Master
queried the endorsement on the Summons and stated
that it did not comply with the ruling of Mr. Justice
Murnaghan as regards the endorsement. He stated that
the endorsement should give particulars of the dates
on wh'ch the (roods were delivered, or .the first and the
last date,
showing
the amounts
and giving
credit
separaely if in fact there were any credits (which there
were not in this case). Our Town Agent infomed us that
it was necessary to prepare a new Summons and forward
it for issuing.
The position therefore is that four months after the
Summons was issued that we now have had to start all
over again. We do not know the date on which the
ruling of Mr. Justice Murnaghan as regards the endorse
ment was made. For the following reasons we think that
the ruling as regards the endorsement and even
the
necessity to give detailed particulars in the Affidavit of
Debt)
is altogether unnecessary so far as a Plaintiff is
concerned.
1. Detailed Invoices and Stattments uf Account in this
were and are usually furnished by merchants to their
customers.
2.
A Defendant can always serve a Notice requiring
detailed particulars of an account.
3
In the case of disnuted account the Defendant has
the right to file a Defence.
4. Notice of Motion
for
Judgment
is
served on
Defendant.
5.
If Judgment is obtained wrongly against a Defendant
he has the right to apply
to have
it set aside,
probably with costs against the Plaintiff.
Therefore there are many opportunities and remedies
open to the defaulting debtor and we c'o not see why
merchants who give goods on credit shoud have matters
made so difficult, complicated and expensive for them
that
they cannot readilv obtain
judgment against a
defaulter. In many cases speed in obtaining judgment
is of the utmost importance as the case of fly by night
debtor occasionally arises.
Apart from the foregoing there is also the question of
why
the High Court Central Office should
issue a
Summons if the endorsement is
obviously
defective. In
High Court matters as you know the Summons is issued
by the Court and not by the Plaintiff.
We
think that
the matter should brought
to
the
attention of the Superior Courts Rules Committee as we
feel that the law should be on the side of the ordinary
business community and not on the side of defaulting
('rjtors when in fact there are so many reriedies at their
disposal.
23