12 / 114
112
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
[MAY, 1910
-was right.
In this case the plaintiff failed
in his action, but the judge gave judgment
for
the defendant without
costs. Both
.parties appealed from that decision, and each
.claimed that judgment ought to be entered
for him with costs. The defendants only
appealed, therefore, against the disallowance
of their costs.
It happened that the defen–
dants lodged their notice of appeal first, and
then, by ord, 58, rr. 6 and 7, there is to be
no separate notice of appeal on the other
side, but what is called a cross-notice of
appeal is given.
In my opinion that is
merely machinery to ensure that if there are
appeals by both parties, those two shall
come on together, and that there is no other
meaning or object of
those
rules. The
consequence is that it by no means follows
that
the
appeal
and
cross-appeal
are
dependent one on the other. They may be
so, but they may be quite independent.
In
this case they were quite independent, and
the rights of the parties when they came to
argue these appeals were, in my opinion,
exactly the same as
if
two independent
notices of appeal had been given and they
were heard by the Court at the same time.
The appeal of
the plaintiff was by far the
wider in its scope, it went to the whole of the
. decision ; and if the two had been contested
,at length, I think that it is quite possible
that the Court might have elected to hear the
appeal against the whole of the decision
before it heard the appeal with regard to
costs, and there would have been nothing, in
my opinion, contrary to the rules of court
.if they had chosen to do so. Under those
circumstances they made one order, which
was substantially two, dismissing each of the
appeals with costs ; and the question before
us is, whether the mere fact that one of the
appeals is in form of notice of appeal and the
other of cross-notice of appeal, is to give the
former such a position of priority that the
taxation of those two sets of costs are to be
on wholly different principles.
In my
opinion the decision of the court was not
that in any sense.
It dismissed each of the
appeals as if they were independent appeals
with costs, and the Master has to tax the
costs of this appeal and this cross-appeal upon
that principle.
It is not a matter of any
difficulty.
It
is
similar
to
that which
perpetually occurred before the Judicature
Act, when there- would be an action and a
cross-action, and the two were tried together,
possibly with one brief, .or at all events with
the same Counsel, with the same witnesses,
and the Master had to apportion the costs of
those two independent actions. Therefore,
there is no difficulty in my mind in the
interpretation of the order;
there is no
difficulty in my mind in the carrying out of
the order so interpreted.
I do not mean to
say that a cross-notice of appeal is always
an independent notice.
It may be distinctly
dependent ;
it may be that if the court set
aside so much of the decision, then the other
party will claim that it ought to be done in
a particular way. Under those circumstances
I have no doubt that the court would, in
giving direction as to taxation, see that the
costs of that dependent motion was properly
awarded. We have nothing of that kind
here.
In my opinion we have simply to
consider what is the effect of what were
practically two independent orders of the
court upon two independent appeals, and
how they should be interpreted.
In my
opinion, in a difficult case, Hamilton, J.,
has given suggestions they are no more
to the Master as to how he should carry out
what is his duty, that is, apportioning them.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
(Reported
The Solicitors'
Journal and
Weekly Reporter,
Vol. liv., p. 424).
Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906.
MEMORANDUM WITH REFERENCE
TO
THE
PRACTICE
IN THE LAND REGISTRY OF
IRELAND UNDER THE LABOURERS
(IRE–
LAND) ACT, 1906.
LAND REGISTRY OF IRELAND,
CENTRAL OFFICE,
DUBLIN,
April,
1910.
NOTE. This Memorandum is issued merely
with a view to assisting the Local Registrars,
Solicitors to Rural District Councils, and
others in the work of Registration of Title
under the Labourers Act of 1906.
It must
be taken as liable to modification as a result
of judicial decisions, or otherwise,