32 / 244
bill of costs charging the scale fee on the amount
o f the consideration and the rent, and also item
charges in respect o f the furnishing of title. The
opinion of the Council was requested as to whether
or not the lessee was liable to pay the last-mentioned
charges. There was no dispute as to the scale fee.
The Council expressed the opinion that in point of
law the lessee was liable to pay the lessor’s costs of
furnishing the title in addition to the scale fee, but
that, in the circumstances of the case, these costs
should not be charged.
Costs o f road traffic prosecutions.
A
t
page
68
o f the Society’s
G
azette
for April,
1949, there is a note o f an opinion o f the Council
as to the minimum fee for defending proceedings
under the Road Traffic Act in the District Court
on behalf o f a client in which an insurance company
had agreed to pay the costs as part o f their liability
under the policy of indemnity. The Council
expressed the view that the minimum fee, on the
facts submitted, should be 4 guineas. In the case
in question, the solicitor was not acting generally
for the insurance company, and the case was heard
outside the town in which he carried on practice.
The Council, having reconsidered this matter,
decided that the report should be amplified by
stating that the minimum fee o f 4 guineas applies
only' where the solicitor is required to attend a
court which is not held in the town where he carries
on practice. In the case of a Dublin solicitor appear
ing in the Dublin Metropolitan Court, or a country
solicitor appearing in the local court, the minimum
fee in a case of this kind would be 3 guineas.
O
ctober
27m . The President in the Chair. Also
present: Messrs. J. P. Tyrrell and Joseph Barrett,
Vice-Presidents; Messrs. W. S. Hayes, Daniel
O’Connell, J. R. Quirke, C. E. Callan, J. Travers
Wolfe, W. J. Norman, Henry P. Mayne, D. R.
Counahan, William L. Duggan, Reginald J. Nolan,
Dermot P. Shaw, IT. St. J. Blake, Patrick F.
O’Reilly, A. Cox, L. E. O’Dea, T. A. O’Reilly,
Sean O hUadhaigh.
The following was among the business transacted :
Sale o f solicitor’s practice—use o f retired
solicitor’s name.
O
n
the facts of a particular case submitted for their
opinion, the Council decided that, on the sale of
his practice by a solicitor who is about to take up
a wholetime position in the service of the State, it
is improper that his name should continue to be
displayed on a name plate attached to the office
premises in such a manner as to suggest that he is
still associated with the practice during the tenure
o f the public appointment, or that his name should
be used on the firm’s notepaper in such a manner
as to suggest that he is associated with the practice.
The Council further held that there is no objection
to the use of the name o f the retired solicitor as
part o f the name of the firm, provided that the
name of the solicitor who acquired the practice is
printed solely underneath.
Change o f solicitors—duty to beneficiaries
and sureties.
A
m em ber
inquired as to whether he was under
any obligation or duty towards the beneficiaries
or the sureties on an administration bond in a case
in which he acted for the personal representative
who had subsequently changed his solicitor, and
required him to hand over to him all moneys in his
hands. The Council expressed the opinion that
unless the solicitor had given an undertaking to the
beneficiaries or sureties, with the authority o f the
personal representative, his professional duty is
solely towards the personal representative, and
not towards the beneficiaries or sureties, and that
he is obliged to hand over all papers connected
with the matter and all moneys in his hands to the
personal representative, jor the solicitor acting for
the latter, on receipt of a proper authority signed by
the personal representative.
Death Duties—certificate o f discharge.
T
he
Council considered a report from
a
committee
on correspondence with the head o f the Estate
Duty Office in regard to the form o f certificate of
discharge from Death Duties at present issued by
the office. The head o f the Estate Duty Office
stated that the Revenue Commissioners do not
consider that they are under any obligation to issue
an unqualified certificate of discharge from death
duties or to determine the value o f the property
until the expiration o f two years from the date of
the death of the deceased. The Secretary was directed
to reply, drawing attention to the provisions of
Section 14 o f the Finance Act, 1907, which
•j empowers the Revenue Commissioners in their
discretion to determine the value of the property
for the purpose o f duty at any time after the date of
death, and submitting that effect should be given
to the last-mentioned section.
EX
PARTE
APPLICATIONS
BEFORE MASTER OF THE HIGH
COURT.
R
epresentations
have been made
by
the Council
to the Master of the High Court in regard to the