144 / 244
Tenant Acts, and accordingly it was the right of the
lessor’s solicitor to prepare the renewal lease, his
costs being chargeable on the commission scale.
Consultation Rooms
On a report from the Finance Committee it was
decided by the Council that in future the Members’
Hall, Council Chamber and Consultation Rooms
should be available only for members of the Society.
Leases granted in consideration o f a Fine
and a Rent
The Council considered a report from a Com
mittee referring to a recommendation already
published in the
G
azette
that where a lease which
is substantially a sale is granted in consideration of
a fine as well as a rent, the agreement for the lease
prepared by the solicitors for the parties ought to
contain a stipulation providing that each party to
the lease should pay his own solicitor’s costs. The
Committee enquired whether this recommendation
was intended to apply to the case of a lease o f a site
for the erection of a dwelling house in consideration
of a rent, and o f a small fine intended to reimburse
the lessor for the proportionate cost o f the roads,
drains, laying on water and similar matters. The
Council decided that the recommendation already
made in regard to the costs applies irrespective of
the amount o f the fine.
RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS OF
SALE
Burdens which affect registered land without
registration under Section 47 o f the
Registration o f Title Act, 1891
The effect of Section 15 o f the Registration of
Title Act, 1942, is to make void any stipulation in a
contract for sale or conditions o f sale that theVendor
is not to be required to furnish evidence that the
land sold is free from any burdens which affect it
without registration under Section 47 o f the Regis
tration o f Title Act 1891. This statutory provision
in the view o f the Council is in the interests o f the
public and the profession, as the practice of including
stipulations which are unduly restrictive o f the
purchaser’s right to investigate the title is to the
advantage of neither the solicitors nor their clients.
The attention o f the Council has been drawn to the
following Condition of Sale which has been used in
some localities since the passing of the Registration
of Title Act, 1942.
“ Any evidence which may be required as to the
existence of any burdens, or the non-existence o f
such, which may affect registered land without
registration under the provisions o f the Registration
o f Title Acts will be given at the sole cost of the
purchaser only.”
It was hardly contemplated by the Legislature
that the effect of Section 15 o f the Registration of
Title Act, 1942, would have been to throw additional
expense on purchasers, and it seems to the Council
that this is another example of the objectionable
practice o f making a purchaser liable for part of the
vendor’s costs. The Council think that stipulations
o f this kind should be avoided, and that the vendor
should bear the expense o f producing whatever
evidence is necessary that the burdens have been
discharged.
NEGATIVE AND COMMON
SEARCHES
EXPLANATIONS OF ACTS
T
he
Council think it advisable to draw the attention
o f solicitors acting for vendors to the importance,
when explaining acts appearing on a search against
premises which have been sold, o f ensuring that the
explanations given are accurate. This applies
particularly where the explanation is worded in
such a way as to suggest that the facts have been
personally investigated by the vendor’s solicitor
and not merely supplied to him by his client. It is
suggested that where an explanation is based on
information supplied by the client and not on the
solicitor’s personal investigation o f the facts the
source o f the information be stated in order to
avoid any misunderstanding.
PROFESSIONAL ITEMS
Withdrawal or amendment o f Bill o f Costs
M
r
. J
ustice
K
ingsmill
M
oore
gave judgment in
a case o f interest to the profession in the case of
White
v.
Boggs (85, I.L.T .R . 1.). The plaintiff was
solicitor for the father o f the defendant and also for
the defendant in connection with the sale o f several
holdings o f unregistered land, and had also acted
as the purchaser’s solicitor in the same transactions.
The defendant was sued as the vendor and personal
representative o f the vendor in connection with the
respective sales.
The solicitor thought that he was entitled to
one set o f charges only, divisible equally between
the vendor and purchaser in each case. This
opinion was in point o f fact erroneous, the amount
o f the charges depending upon the facts in each
case. See Wilson to Best and another (1915,
I. I.R . 58). Payment o f the bill by the defendant
was delayed owing to a dispute, and the plaintiff
72