43 / 90
NOVEMBER, 1915]
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
43
interestTon the costs thereby awarded, as
from the date of such order.
Taylor
v.
Roe
(1894), 1 Ch. 413, followed
and applied.
Summons by the plaintiff for payment out
of the funds in Court of the amount' found
due to him and costs.
The funds in Court represented the proceeds
of the sale of the property of the defendants
which had been^old in the action, which was
brought to enforce payment of the defen
dants' contribution to renewal fines paid by
the plaintiff for the benefit of the common
property of the plaintiff and the defendants.
By an attachment order dated the 28th
February, 1911, the defendant, William J.
Curragh, was directed to pay to the plaintiff
his costs of the motion and order. The costs
amounted to
£11
13s. lid., and the plaintiff
now claimed interest on the said amount
from the date of the order.
By a further attachment order dated the
5th February, 1912, the defendant, William
J. Curragh, was directed to pay to the plaintiff
his costs of the motion and order. These
costs amounted to £17 3s. 7d., and the plaintiff
now claimed interest on the said amount from
the date of the order.
The payment schedule comprised interest
computed on the above two sums as from
the dates of the orders, to be paid by the
defendant, William J. Curragh, out of his
share of the residue of the funds. To this the
defendant objected, upon the ground that
interest was only chargeable from the date
of the certificate of taxation of the costs.
Barton, J.—
Lidwell
v.
Lidwell
no longer
regulates the practice in Ireland, which now
depends upon Order XLIL, Rules 13 and 15.
The corresponding English Order XLIL,
Rules 14 and 16, was considered in
Taylor
v.
Roe,
where it was held by Stirling, J., that
an interlocutory order directing the payment
of costs by one person to another carries
interest from the date of the order. There
is no distinction between that case and the
present one, and there is no reason why the
practice should not be the same in the two
countries, nor why the decision of Stirling, J.,
should not be followed and applied here.
In my opinion the plaintiff is entitled to
interest upon these two sums of costs from
the dates of the two orders respectively.
Reported (1915) 1
I.R.,
273.
The Irish Land Commission.
THE following Sittings of the Court of the
Land Commission for hearing Appeals have
been provisionally arranged :—
Place of Sitting
Castlebar
. ..
Roscommon
Clonmel
Waterford ...
Wexford
...
Date of Sitting
19I5-
Nov.
gth
,,
nth
„
i6th
1 7th
,,
iqth
Districts Listed
Co. Mayo
Co. Roscommon
Co. Tipperary (part of)
and Co. Waterford
(part of)
Co. Waterford (part of)
and
Co.
Kilkenny
(part of)
Co. Wexford
Results of Examinations.
AT the Preliminary Examination held upon
7th and 8th October, the following passed the
examination, and their names are arranged
in order of merit:—
1. Cecil P. Moore.
2. Vincent P. McMullin.
3. Eric C. Doogan.
The remaining candidates are postponed.
Five candidates attended :
three passed ;
two were postponed.
At the Intermediate Examination held
upon October llth, the following passed the
examination, and their names are arranged
in order of merit:—CLASS I.
1. Patrick J. Ruttledge.
2. John M. Cronin.
3. James J. Matthews.
CLASS II.
Albert Woodcock.
The remaining candidates are postponed.
Six candidates attended : four passed ; two
were postponed.
Dates of Examinations.
THE following are the dates of the January,
1916, Examinations :—
January 3rd, 4th and 5th.—Final Examina
tion (notice to be lodged in Secretary's
Office before 17th December).
January 6th and 7th.—Preliminary Ex
amination
(notice
to
be
lodged
in
Secretary's Office before 17th December).
ALL communications connected with THE
GAZETTE (other than advertisements) should
be addressed to the Secretary of the Society,
Solicitors' Buildings, Four Courts, Dublin.