267 / 328
paragraph is taken from an article which the learned
judge had written in the March 1963 issue of the
American Bar Association Journal:—
"A first office of a lawyer in our society is to
protect individual rights, especially those secured to
people
accused of trespassing
society's
laws.
American lawyers cannot be mere private prac
titioners of the law. That phrase—' government by
law '—is no empty platitude. It is the essence of a
free society. No nation possesses a code which is
better designed to assure the civilized and decent
administration of justice—this is the hall mark of a
free society. But that code will provide only paper
protection if our people are more concerned with
prosecutions that are overturned, than with funda
mental principles that are upheld. Because it is only
in upholding fundamental principles, even at the
expense of freeing some not-very-nice people, that
the protections for nice people are maintained."
P.A.Y.E. TEST CASE
SOLICITOR'S CLAIMS FOR WORK
In a Magistrates Court in England recently an
action was brought by the Inland Revenue which
stated, that a solicitor objected to doing a Tax man's
work under the P.A.Y.E. system for nothing. The
solicitor refused to admit liability for non payment
of
£12.
2S., outstanding income tax for the 1962/63
period. Refusal was based on two principles firstly
that no man could be forced to work for nothing
and secondly that only by Act of Parliament could
personal liberty be interfered with.
The Inland
Revenue contended that it was a subject's duty to
carry out statutory duties and that there was no
entitlement
to
remuneration by employers
for
deducting tax.
Under the Legal Aid Scheme a
solicitor was paid for his services, and the collection
of tax was a service for which he should also be paid.
The Magistrates made an order against the solicitor,
who stated it was his intention to appeal the decision.
CLAIMS AGAINST ESTATES
IN THE
U.S.A.
A member of the Society recently wrote stating
that he acted for beneficiaries in Ireland who had
received a communication from an investigation
bureau in the United States informing them that
they were entitled to a share in an estate and offering
to investigate and prosecute the claim in return for a
commission of 40% of the amount recovered.
Member advised the clients that the rate of com
mission was excessive but had no further information
to enable him to trace the situation of the assets, the
date or place of death of the deceased or any other
information which would enable him to proceed
with the matter. The Society took the matter up
with the Department of External Affairs and, as the
result of investigations by the Department, the
State and County where the deceased had died was
ascertained. Further investigation revealed that the
deceased had died some three years ago and that the
public administrator had filed a petition for letters of
administration. As the heirs at law were unknown
the assets were distributed to the State. The Depart
ment advised the Society that an attorney in the
State concerned advised the Consul General that an
escheated estate may be reclaimed for the legal heir
within five years of the date on which the final
decree was made. For this purpose however very
full documentary evidence is required since the
Attorney General's office acting on behalf of the
State opposes claims of heirs which would have the
effect of depriving the State of the escheated funds.
The facts of the present case are of interest from
two aspects. Solicitors for Irish beneficiaries may,
by means of enquiries through the Department of
External Affairs, be able to trace American estates
without the intervention of roreign agents who
charge a high rate of commission. It is also important
to note that the period on the expiration of which
property escheats to the State is short in some of
the States of the Union.
In the present case the
deceased died in November 1960.
Letters of
administration were granted in December 1960 and
the final discharge was filed in June 1963. On that
date the property escheated to the State of California
and claims of beneficiaries will be finally barred five
years thereafter.
SETTLEMENT OF DAMAGES
LIMITATION OF COSTS
Judgment for £50,000 and costs was entered in
favour of an infant plaintiff for damages for personal
injury based on admitted negligence, with liberty
to apply as to the disposal of all monies recovered
by her or her behalf. Subsequently a deed of settle
ment of the damages was drawn up and the court
ordered that the monies payable as damages be paid
to a custodian trustee to be held on the terms of the
settlement. On taxation the defendant objected to all
the items of costs incurred in connection with the
trust deed and its approval holding that the items
were not properly1
part of a party and party bill of
costs. The Taxing Master however allowed all the
items and on review sustained his decision. Defendant
applied to the Court for review relying on rule 28 (2)
of the Supreme Court Rules 1959.
Megaw J.
considering Rule 28 (2) " there shall be allowed all
such costs as were necessary or proper for the attain
ment of justice or for enforcing or defending the
47