192 / 244
An appeal is made to all custodians o f documents,
rentals and ledgers, o f a date prior to 1870, to let
the Keeper o f Manuscripts, National Library,
know before any such be scrapped, and to
in form
him o f anything of interest of this nature. The
National Library has already a large collection of
family archives and is anxious to acquire more,
whether by gift or purchase, or on long loan.
Some solicitors have already helped greatly in this
way. It is hoped that further progress will be made
in this direction as the result o f this notice.
FORGED CODICIL
A
D
ublin
solicitor, who had drawn a will for an
old-standing client, received by post shortly after
the client’s death in August, 1950, a document
which purported to be a codicil to the will. The
document was written in a rather illiterate fashion,
and the suspicions o f the solicitor were aroused as
to its genuineness. He sent the papers to the police,
who, after making inquiries, stated that they were
certain that the so-called codicil was written by an
elderly person who was not responsible for her
actions. On a previous occasion the papers in a
similar matter had been submitted to the Attorney-
General, who had directed that on the facts sub
mitted to him, a prosecution should not be instituted.
It seems that the person in question frequently
utters documents of this nature, and a local firm of
solicitors has received numerous inquiries from
Ireland and England on the subject. The Probate
Officer is aware of the identity o f the person in
question and has received a number o f similar
documents.
The utterer o f these forgeries is
apparently prompted to indulge in this peculiar
hobby by reading the Preliminary Notice to
Creditor? in the newspapers.
A solicitor who
receives a testamentary document o f a suspicious
nature would be well advised to show it in the first
instance to the Probate Officer to ascertain whether
it is the work o f the person in question.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
To attempt to deceive the court by disguising the
true nature of the claim by the indorsement on a
specially indorsed writ is a contempt o f court.
A solicitor was instructed by a client to bring
an action against bookmakers for money alleged
to be owed by them to the clients on bets. The
client, Weisz, insisted that the action be brought,
although he knew it was not maintainable under the
Gaming Acts, in .the hope that the threat o f publicity
would induce the bookmakers to pay, or, if they
did not, for the purpose o f “ showing them up.”
Accordingly, a specially indorsed writ was issued
against the bookmakers by which the money was
claimed to be due on an account stated. No account
had been stated, as the solicitor well knew. Weisz
did not know o f the terms o f the indorsement.
The solicitor throughout had acted on the advice
o f counsel.
H
eld
by the Divisional Court (Lord Goddard,
C.J. ; Hilbery and Devlin, J.J.) that the solicitor
had committed a contempt o f Court because the
indorsement on the writ was fictitious, and was
designed to conceal from the Court the true nature
of the claim ; but that Weisz had not committed a
contempt, for to bring an action prohibited by
the Gaming Act, 1945, although an abuse o f the
process o f the Court, was not of itself a contempt,
even though it were brought to put pressure on the
bookmakers, or to “ show them up ” as the client
was not responsible for the terms o f the indorsement
on the writ.
Per Lord Goddard, C .J
.—The very fact that on
many previous occasions resort has been had to
this particular form o f indorsement in cases which
are brought simply for the recovery o f money won
at betting or gaming is what gives importance to
this motion for attachment for contempt. It is
time that this practice should be stopped, and in no
uncertainmanner. It is in our opinion beyond question
that to disguise a cause o f action so as to conceal
its true nature when in truth it is one prohibited
by Statute is a contempt. It is necessary to emphasise
that the contempt in this case lies not in bringing an
action forbidden by the Gaming Acts, but in bring
ing it as a feigned issue so as to conceal its true
nature from the Court.
(Rex
v.
Weisz—ex parte Hector McDonald, Ltd.
1951 2 K .B . 6 11.)
SOLICITOR-MORTGAGEE
INTEREST
A
solicitor
who was one o f the executors o f a
mortgagee refused, on the mortgagor’s giving
notice to redeem, to part with the title deeds to
the property, claiming a lien for moneys which he
himself had personally advanced.
His claim to
the lien was dismissed by the Court o f Appeal in
proceedings in a redemption action (See
Gazette,
February, 1951, p. 51). During the action, the
necessity for which was the sole cause o f delay in
payment o f the mortgage moneys, the solicitor
took a transfer o f the mortgage from the other
executors, and became sole mortgagee.
H
eld
by Danckwerts, J. that, in spite o f the
delay in redemption which was caused by the
unsustainable claim advanced by the mortgagee-
42