The Gazette 1975

S u Í T

WAS £ 1 2

0 0 0

OF WHICH £ , ,

5 0

HAD BCCN

At the first ordinary General Meeting of the'

nan u

y 1,1 M a r c h

1 9 5 4

if w a s a

r c e d

«hat the com-

y s h o u , t I

be allowed to borrow without limit. The

-ompany negotiated for an overdraft with the

s h

! "

c , aI

k, who insisted that the Company

uid g,

vc a

Debenture charging all its assets. This

pro

l t U r e W3S t 0 r a n k

a s a l i r s t c h a r g e o n

t h e

l c a ^ u

3S r e g a r d s

t h e

Company's freehold and

cha

p r e m i s c s

ir w a s t o

regarded as a fixed

pro'

•

a s r c

a r d s

all other present or future

T h c f

^ '

lt W a s t 0 b e re

8arded as a floating security,

Judgment. The amounts due by the Company to the

an* were as follows: (a) January 1956—£14,570; (b)

January 1966—£13,081; (c) January 1971—£60,260. On

j. September, 1971, the Bank appointed the

ppiicant as receiver of the assets of the company. The

w h

e r h

as applied to the Court to determine (1)

£1 lsn/T

tllC d e b e n t u r e

was valid; (2) whether it secures

the

n l y o r t h e l o t a l s u m n o w

due—£98,000. At

general meeting of 1954, the company gave its

n t t o

the directors to borrow more than the

t h

U e d 5 h a

r e capital of the company; it follows that

£H ! ?

o u n t sc

curcd by the debenture is not limited to

|'500, but that the whole amount is due.

sin

b a

a n c e

sheets and accounts for many years

1954

were accepted and signed at the general

S of the company. The accounts, prepared by

Bors, would have shown the amount borrowed by

Com

Pany. On the authority of Grant v. U.K.

ap'J

Railway Co. — (1888) 40 Ch.D. 135 —

aco °

t b e

Company in general meeting of the

of th

W o i d d

have been a ratification of the actions

l a r

directors in borrowing more than the issued

rul

C a p

t i d

t b e

company. The Court accordingly

t b a t t b e

debenture of February, 1954, given by

f j

C o m

P a ny to the Provincial Bank was a valid and

aea

,CtlVe £ ) e b e n t u r e

» which created a valid charge

mst the assets of the company in respect of monies

and

t 0 t h e B a n k i n e x c e s s o f £ 1 1

5 0 0

T h u s t h e B a n k

other creditors are entitled to claim the total

jount due to them.

. We Burke, Clancy & Co. Ltd.—Application of John

Receiver—Kenny J—unreported—23 May,

terms of the Debenture are set out in the

stody of two boys transferred from father to

mother, due to father's misconduct.

Can

9 0 c t o b e r

1974

Kcnn

.V J- ordered that the

child

W i fe b e

Slanted custody of her infant

h u s h '

a n d t h a t t h e y s h o u l d b e h a n d e d o v e r b

t h e

the -

n h e r u n d

e r t ak i ng not to take them outside

D re

,Uns

diction. The husband appealed. (For full

cJ!/®

facts, see Gazette, May, 1972, p.147). The

awa

f t h e t w o b

°y

- aged 9 and 12, had

been

1 0

ooys,

a i a n a oeeu

the T

t 0 t h C f 3 t h e r 0 n 2 7 A p r i 1

1 9 7 2 , Si,1Ce t h e n

take

C W3S s a t i s f i e d th

at improper relations had

l a ce

between the husband and two other

t i n t e d °

n e

f t h e s e l i a i s o n s h a d t a k e n

l a c e a t a

consul

t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e i n t h e h o u s e

T h e

u d g c

W o u

r e d

that in such circumstanccs misconduct

of th K

6 a d e v a s t a t i n

8 effect on the moral standards

ooys who are now aged 11 and 14. The husband

tried to slate that the lady in question was a neigh-

bour, who merely looked after the children, but that

no misconduct luui taken place; this lady declined to

give evidence. The Judgc in those circumstanccs was

satisfied that the boys, who were of an impressionable

age, should be removed from the father's custodv.

Butler v. Butler established that the parent who loses

the custody still retains rights of guardianship. The

Supreme Court has interviewed the two boys, trying

to canvass their views. In the prevailing circumstances,

as the boys should have constant access to both

parents who do not live far away from one another,

they should be in the custody of their mother during

the shool week, but the father should have access to

them at weekends to bring them to sports. Special

arrangements will be made for vacations. These boys

may not be removed out of the jurisdiction of the

Court by either parent without leave.

(Waters v. Waters—Supreme Court (Walsh, Henchy

and Griffin J J.)—Separate judgments by each Judge—

unreported- -8 December, 1974).

£12,000 award for wife enticement

An award of £12,000 was made by a Cork jury in the

High Court on 17 January 1975 in an action brought

by a former resident in the Bishopstown area who

alleged that his wife had been enticed and debauched

by a neighbour.

The plaintiff in the action before Mr. Justice Gannon

alleged that criminal conversation had taken place

with his wife and he claimed da-mages from the

defendant. The issue before the jury was one of

assessment, and their members were told by the

Judge at the conclusion of his direction to them that

"there is no rule of thumb in matters like this. There

is no element of reward for the plaintiff or of punish-

ment for the defendant. Please bring out a reasonable

figure."

The plaintiff told the court that he and his wife

married in 1960 and there were no children

of the marriage but they had adopted two children.

Their marriage had been a happy one for many years.

He did not know the defendant, who lived

nearby, until the defendant's wife died about 1970.

They then became friendly to some extent, and he

noticed after a while that there seemed to be some

sort of relationship between his wife and the

defendant, but he did not think it was a close relation-

ship at first.

In the summer of 1972, his wife went to Dublin by

herself saying she wanted to see her sister. He did

not want her to go but she went anyway, and over-

stayed her visit by a few days.

Later that year his wife told him she had been

invited to a christening party given by a relative of

the defendant's and that he had not been invited. He

told her then that he did not want her to go to the

party, but she insisted on going.

"I waited until the early hours of the morning for

her to return and then I heard her arriving in the

defendant's van. I had the front door locked at that

time but she got in through a window. I let her in

through the window and then pushed her out of the