113 / 328
edited in 5 parts—History of the Legal System—
The Legal Profession (Barristers and Solicitors)—
Givil Procedure and Practice—Criminal Procedure—
Evidence. Mr. Rudd, as a barrister who is a lecturer
in the Practice of the Courts at the English Law
Society's School of Law, is well versed in the
intricacies of this subject, and, despite the difficulties,
has succeeded in conveying the elements of court
procedure to the student in as simple a manner as
possible. It would be impossible to state concisely
the amount of deep research that Mr. Rudd must
have employed to state the principles so clearly and
yet so concisely, and yet our learned author has
succeeded in making his matter most readable.
Although there are some differences between English
and Irish Court practice, this need not deter the
practitioner or the student from purchasing this
well-produced and attractive book, because the
practice that will be learned effortlessly will more
than repay the cost.
DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST
failure by auctioneer to pay over money to client—Notice
ofproceedings to recover—Section
15 (i)
Auctioneers and
House Agents Act,
1947.
Section 15 (i) of the Auctioneers and House Agents
Act 1947 provides that where a plaintiff recovers a
judgment against a defendant for payment of money
in discharge of a liability incurred by the defendant
as a licensed auctioneer or house agent in relation
to the receipt or payment of money, the High Court
maj, on application, order such money to be paid
out to him (the plaintiff) from the statutory deposit
maintained by the defendant. Where, however, the
auctioneer has fulfilled his statutory obligation by
means of a guarantee bond with an insurance
company it is provided that if notice of the institution
of the proceedings against the auctioneer is served
before the hearing of the proceedings
on the insurance
company the Court may order the appropriate sum
to be paid to the account of the Courts of Justice by
the Company on behalf of the plaintiff. In a recent
case an auctioneer had a bond from an insurance
company and the plaintiff wrote a letter on April
3oth, 1959 to the defendant company giving notice
of intention to institute proceedings for the recovery
of a sum of .£138, the proceeds of a furniture sale,
and that the claim would be against their insured, the
auctioneer, and arising out of his default. A copy of
the Civil Bill that it was intended to serve was
enclosed and it was stated that it would be served on
May 7th. The letter was formally acknowledged on
June 3rd. The Civil Bill was duly served prior to the
receipt of the acknowledgment. It was held by the
Supreme Court
(Maguire C.
J., Lavery
and
Kingsmill-Moore J. J.) affirming the judgment of
Budd, J., that the intention of the section was that
the notice must be served
after
the institution of
proceedings but
before
the hearing. Accordingly, the
letter of the 3oth April, 1959 having been sent before
the institution of proceedings was not in compliance
with the terms of Section 15 as it was only
notice of
intention
to bring proceedings. Lavery J. dissented
(In the Matter of the Auctioneers and House Agents
Act, 1947; and In the Matter of Edward Nolan, an
auctioneer;
John Maher
v.
the
Irish National
Insurance Company, Ltd., I.L.T., March 3ist, 1962,
page 92).
"Exclusion of legal representation in arbitration—dis
cretion of arbitrators.
An application to set aside an award made by two
arbitrators under the London Metal Exchange
regulations was dismissed by McNair J., in Hemy
Bath & Son Ltd.,
v.
Birgby Products. The regulations
provided that neither counsel nor a solicitor should
be briefed to appear for either party without the
consent of the arbitrators. The applicants, Birgby
Products, contended that the arbitrators had im
properly exercised their discretion by excluding
legal representation at the hearing. They had perused
papers which had been delivered by Henry Bath &
Son Ltd., and also a letter from Birgby Products'
solicitors before excluding legal representation and
had then decided to adhere to the normal practice
laid down by the rules. They had not examined
Birgby Products case before arriving at this decision.
It was contended that if they had done so an issue of
fraud would have been disclosed. His lordship held
that although it was always open to the court to
interfere with the discretion of the arbitrators where
it had been improperly exercised, he did not think
that there had been any improper or excessive
exercise of discretion in this case. As long as an
arbitrator exercises his discretion honestly and fairly
the court would be very loth to interfere. Even
assuming that there had been fairly raised some
question of fraud, he did not accept the submission
that in every case in which fraud was raised in an
arbitration the parties were entitled, in the face of
the normal practice of the trade in which those
arbitrations took place, to be legally represented.
DISCLOSURE OF STATEMENTS MADE
TO POLICE
Changes in Crown Privilege Claims
Two modifications of the procedure regarding
disclosure in civil proceedings of statements made
to the police in the course of a criminal investigation
were announced by the Lord Chancellor in the House
of Lords yesterday.
Lord Kilmuir recalled that in June, 1956, he made
105