137 / 328
Neuberger Products, Ltd. ("1957) I.Q.B. 247 and
after anxious consideration, his lordship had come
to the conclusion that the solicitor had made certain
deliberately inaccurate entries in his books with
intent to deceive the accountants. The accountants
should have known that he had not complied with
the rules, although they did not :
their breach of
duty was not in using young and comparatively
inexperienced audit clerks in relation to the detailed
work, but, principally, in inadequate supervision.
The partner had failed to appreciate to a proper
extent that his duty as an accountant was wider than
merely to protect the solicitor but extended to
protecting clients and the public against carelessness
or dishonesty on the part of the solicitor himself.
However, in view of the finding that the solicitor
knew that what he was doing was wrong, not only a
technical breach of professional rules but against the
law of the land, his claim failed. Action dismissed.
Circuit Court Decree for damages for Trespass—Costs to
Plaintiff. No Poor Law Valuation—Costs measured
under Rule
27,
Order
58
Circuit Court Rules
1950.
The plaintiff was the registered owner of an acre
of land upon which the defendant had built part of
a house, planted shrubs, flowers and vegetables,
placed obstructions and allowed his cattle to graze.
In the ensuing Circuit Court action it was ordered
that the plaintiff recover from the defendant the
costs and witnesses' expenses of the proceedings
when taxed and ascertained. There was no poor law
valuation of the land in question. The County
Registrar was of opinion that there was no appro
priate scale of costs and consequently measured a
sum for costs under rule 27 of Order 58 of the
Circuit Court Rules, 1950. To assist him in arriving
at this sum, he first considered representations of
plaintiff and defendant and decided that the actual
value of the land was between £500 and
.£
1,000 ; he
then considered the plaintiff's Bill of Costs which
was drawn according to the High Court scale less
one third save that Counsel's fees were slightly
higher than would be allowed if the appropriate
Equity Scale applied. The defendant appealed to the
Circuit Court against the County Registrar's decision.
On dismissal of the appeal, he appealed to the High
Court.
Held:
the Registrar was not bound by any rules
in this case, and he had acted properly and his
taxation must stand.
(John P. Curtin
v.
Patricia Coakley, Irish Law
Times and Solicitors' Journal, May 26th, 1962, page
148.)
Necessity to produce Stationery Office copy of Regulation—
Prosecution under Road Traffic A.cts
The Lord Chief Justice in the case of Palastanga
v.
Solman gave guidance to justices on what they
should do when defending Counsel took the point
that a copy from the Stationery Office of a well
known statutory instrument upon which the pro
secution relied had not been produced in Court.
The Divisional Court had allowed an appeal by case
stated against the dismissal of an information pre
ferred by the appellant, a police inspector against the
defendant Mrs. M. A. W. Solman alleging that she
had on July 29th, 1961 caused a motor vehicle to
stand on a road so as to cause unnecessary obstruction
contrary to regulation 89 of the Motor Vehicles
(Construction and Use) Regulations 1955. At the
hearing, the prosecution did not produce the regula
tions and Counsel for the defendant successfully
submitted that the burden of proving that the regula
tion had been made was on the prosecution and that
this burden had not been discharged. In the opinion
of his Lordship this was a disgraceful point to make,
and he found it difficult to speak on it in moderate
language. The regulation in question was well-known
to everyone who administered the law and parti
cularly to justices who dealt everyda]^ with cases
under it. His Lordship stated that he wished to
reserve for a future occasion the question of whether
the Order was so notorious that judicial conizance
could be taken without production of it in Court.
He found it unnecessary to decide this point because
it seemed to him that the justices should have
adjourned the matter to enable the police inspector
to get a Stationery Office copy. Ashworth and
Atkinson, J. J., concurred.
(The Times,
February zist,
1962.)
Stamp Duty on Deed of Exchange of Freehold Estate for
Leasehold Interest—whether an Exchange or Conveyance
on Sale
In a recent English case the lessors of property
who were also the owners of the freehold interest
therein sold their interest to their lessees. The sale
was carried into effect by the following complicated
series of transactions designed to avoid stamp duty.
The freeholders, the trustees of the Independent
Order of Oddfellows held the premises subject to a
lease to Littlewood's Mail Order Stores Ltd., for 99
years from June 24th, 1947 at an annual rent of
£23,444. This was substantially less than a rack rent.
On December
the 8th Oddfellows granted
to
Littlewoods a lease of the same premises for 22 years
and ten days from that date at an annual rent of
£6
per annum which lease operated as a surrender of
the existing lease. On December 9th Littlewoods