11 / 120
MAY, 1914]
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
:, ,:
Intermediate Examination.
THE July Intermediate Examination will be
held on'Thursday, 2nd July. Notices from
apprentices intending to present themselves
for :the examination should be lodged on or
before Thursday, 18th June.
'
KING'.S BENCH DIVISION (ENGLAND).
'
•
(Before Mr. Justice Scrutton.)
SIMPSON r. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND
1
REVENUE.
Appeal to Referee under Finance Act Term
" -expenses " .distinguished from " costs."
Mr. W. Finlay moved on behalf of the Com
missioners of Inland Revenue for an order of
a Referee to be made a rule of the High Court
under Section 33 (3) of the Finance (1909-10)
Act. 1910. That sub-section provides that
where there is an appeal to a Referee under
Section 33 the Referee may, if he thinks fit,
order that any expenses incurred by the
Commissioners be paid by the appellant.
In this case the Referee made such an order'
following the words of the statute ; he did
not assess the amount of the expenses to be
paid.
Mr. Alien, for the appellant, contended
that the order was bad for uncertainty.
There was no machinery by which the amount
of the " expenses " could be ascertained apart
from a finding of a Referee.
Mr. Justice Scrutton held that the motion
must fail.
" Expenses " was not in England
a term of legal art as it was in Scotland ;
it
was a vague general term, possibly here used
by Parliament because proceedings before a
Referee under the section were treated as
very informal.
If costs had been the word
used the order would not be bad, because
' '
costs " could be ascertained by taxation by
the taxing master, a ministerial and not a
judicial officer. This was the principle applied
to the award of an arbitrator where either by
statute or the terms of submission the award
Recent Decisions affecting Solicitors.
(Notes of decisions, whether in reported or
unreported cases, of interest to Solicitors,
are invited from Members.)
could be made a rule of Court.
Holdsworth
v.
Wilson (4.
B. and S., 1). Apart from agree
ment, that rule did not apply where the award
was that of an inferior Court. The rule did
not apply here because the taxing master had
no
jurisdiction to tax " expenses."
The
Court in the absence of statutory provision
had no power to remedy the defect by sending
the order back to the Referee for him to assess
the amount of the expenses.
The motion
must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.
(From
The Times
of 30th March. 1914.)
RECORDER (DUBLIN)—APPEAL.
(Before Dodd, J.)
BULL
v.
BOWLES AND FRENCH.
May 13,
1913.—
Sheriffs " Execution " of
writ of fi. fa. " Withdrawal " Fees
—
Or.
LXV., Rr.
91
and
92
of the Rules of the
Supreme Court (Ireland),
1905.
In an action for fees brought by a sheriff
against the Solicitors for the execution creditor
the plaintiff must establish by legal evidence
(1)
that there was in fact an " execution " of
the writ of fi. fa.
;
and
(2)
if there has been a
" withdrawal " that the same took place with
the authority of Hie, defendants.
A return of 'mtlla bona is not necessarily
inconsistent with an
"
execution" having
taken place within the meaning of the Order,
and evidence is admissible to rebut the pre–
sumption which arises from s-uch a return.
Appeal from a decree dated April 7, 1913,
of the Right Hon. the Recorder of Dublin in
favour of the plaintiff, who
is
the Sub,-
Sheriff of the King's and Queen's Counties,
for the sum of one pound, being the balance
of fees for work done and money paid by the
plaintiff for the defendants in connection with
the execution of a
fi. fa.
in the case of
MacNeill
v.
Crennan,
together with the sum
of five shillings for costs.
It appeared that
upon March 8, 1912, the defendants, who are
a firm of Solicitors practising in the City of
Dublin, acting upon behalf of their clients,
James MacNeill & Son, Ltd., Glasgow,
obtained a judgment of the High Court of
Justice in Ireland, King's Bench Division, for
the sum of £17 6s. lid., together with the