317 / 328
RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS
(No. 2) 1964
S.I. No. 96 of 1964
The Rules of the Superior Courts (No. 2), 1964,
prescribe procedures in respect of applications under
the Companies Act, 1963, and replace Order 75
and Appendix N of the Rules of the Superior
Courts, 1962.
Copies may be obtained from the
Government Publications
Sale Office, G.P.O.
Arcade, Dublin i, for
z/-
each, plus postage.
THE LAW
OF
STAMP DUTIES"
A comprehensive volume containing the
Stamp Act, 1891, and
the Stamp Duties
Management Act, 1891, together with the
text of all the amending, extending and repeal
provisions contained in subsequent enactments
up to and including the Finance Act, 1963.
Non-revenue enactments imposing Stamp
Duties or conferring special exemption from
Stamp Duties are also included.
The volume is in loose-leaf form. Amending
leaves will be published so that it may be
kept up-to-date.
NOW AVAILABLE
PRICE 3 GUINEAS
from
the Government Publications Sale
Office, G.P.O. Arcade, Dublin i.
(Postage is. gd. extra)
POWER OF JUSTICES TO AMEND
CHARGES
Questions about the jurisdiction of a district
justice in amending charges were answered recently
by the Supreme Court. The court was giving judg
ment in an appeal against the decision of the
President of the High Court in a case submitted
to him for his opinion by a District Justice.
The Supreme Court (O'Dalaigh, C. J. and Walsh, J.,
Kingsmill Moore,
J.
dissenting)
upheld
the
President's judgment.
The appeal was on behalf of Malachi Higgins of
Wyckham Park, Dundrum, Co. Dublin, and the
questions resulted from an objection made by his
counsel in the district court to an application of
the Assistant State Solicitor, to amend three of
four charges against Mr. Higgins under the Road
Traffic Act of 1933.
The complaints related to the driving of a motor
car at Dublin on September loth, 1959 and it
appeared from the charge sheet that Mr. Higgins
had first been before the court on charges on
September nth of that year and had, from time to
time, been remanded on bail.
On October 3131, 1960, the solicitor, who was
conducting the prosecution, applied to have three
of the charges amended by adding to the end of
each of them the words: "Contrary to the Statute in
that case made and provided".
Counsel for Mr. Higgins objected to such amend
ments, and after hearing his submissions and those
of the prosecuting solicitor, the District Justice
submitted a number of questions to the President
of the High Court for his opinion.
The principal questions asked by the District
Justice were whether he had jurisdiction to amend
the charges as requested;
whether he had dis
cretion to grant or refuse the proposed amendments,
and, if he had a discretion, on what principles it
should be exercised.
To these questions the President said that the
District Justice had such jurisdiction and that in
general he had a discretion to grant or refuse the
proposed amendments, and that in every case a
point might be reached where the discretion could
be exercised only in one way if justice was to be
done. In this case there was no reason why the
amendment asked should be refused. In regard to
the principles in which the discretion should be
exercised, the President answered that it was so as
to ensure that the real issue between the com
plainant and defendant might be decided and the
complaints heard and determined in accordance
with law. The Supreme Court made no order as
to costs.
(Irish Times,
19th March, 1964.)
DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST
State Privilege
In Mericks and Another
v.
Nott-Bower & Others
the plaintiffs, Police Officers, claimed declarations
that,
inter alia,
their transfer was in breach of the
principles of natural justice, and also damages for
libel in respect of a minute relating to that transfer.
The defendants, a present and former Commissioner
of the Metropolitan police and another, applied
to strike out the statement of claim, producing
97