226 / 324
and that practice did not disqualify him from
registration.
Mr. Justice Hilbery delivered a concurring judg
ment.
Mr. Justice Devlin, concurring, said
that in
reaching their decision the Discipline Committee
had overlooked one essential matter.
It was not
of itself disgraceful to disagree with the majority
view and to act accordingly ;
it was only if a man
had bound himself in honour to accept that view
and to act accordingly that a deliberate breach of
the code for his own profit could be called " dis
graceful." The appellant had never so bound him
self. Every man has the right to earn his living in
whatever way he chose unless by the law or by his
own voluntary submission
the way was
taken
from him, and in the exercise of that right he must
not be punished by a professional majority under
a pretext that non-conformity of itself was dis
graceful. What the council was trying to do was
to enforce a code which had no legislative sanction
and to coerce a minority, which was free and
unpledged.
If in December, 1955, anyone had
suggested that Mr. Hughes was behaving " dis
gracefully," he could have recovered heavy damages
for defamation. But, it was said, when the clock
struck midnight he began to sin. So high a degree
of punctuality brought the point to absurdity.
Disgrace was not something that got brought in
with the New Year. The day of purification had
not arrived.
His Lordship had said that every profession has
practices—such as advertising, poaching and under
cutting—which it bars. These activities which are
considered in the business world to be
laudable
examples of enterprise have always been considered
.offensive professionally.
If a man joins a profession
in which the use of trade weapons is barred, and
then proceeds to employ them, he is taking an
unfair advantage over his fellows—and may become
guilty of disgraceful conduct.
(Hughes
/••.
Architects Registration Council of
"The United Kingdom") ([1957] 2 All E.R. 436).
Costs imposed on solicitor personally.
In a case, in which the plaintiff was injured when
a short length of timber fell from a set suspended
from the winch of a ship he was helping to unload,
owing to a misunderstanding, the plaintiff's re
presentatives and witnesses did not appear when
the case came on for trial, although the case appeared
in the week's list. Paull J. held that the defendant's
costs of that day must be paid by the plaintiff's
solicitor personally.
(Flatman
v.
J. Fry & Co. (1957) 5 C.L. 349).
Practice—Bias—Justice should be seen to be done—New
Trial.
The plaintiff claimed from the defendants the
return of jewellery alleged to have been pawned
without her consent by one R.
After the close
of the evidence,
(R., whose whereabouts were
unknown, not having been called as a witness),
and during
the speeches Slade
J.
commented
adversely on R. and said that he was inclined to
accept the plaintiff's evidence. As a result of pub
licity given to the case R. contacted the defendants
and with leave gave evidence on their behalf. He
stated that he pawned the jewellery with the con
sent of the plaintiff. Slade J. ordered that the case
should be tried de novo before another judge.
His Lordship said that if having heard R.'s evidence
he was still of the same opinion R. would leave
court thinking that justice was not seen to have
been done.
(Leigh
v.
Sutton
(The Times,
May nth, 1957)
5 C.L. 413).
REGISTRATION OF TITLE ACTS, 1891
AND 1942.
NOTICE.
Ref. 1772/4/57
Folio 411
Registered Owner
County Cavan
ANDREW BRADY
The Registered Owner has applied for a Duplicate
of the Certificate of Title specified in the Schedule
hereto which is stated to have been lost or in
advertently destroyed.
The Duplicate will be issued unless notification is
received in this Registry within 28 days from the
date of this Notice that the said Certificate of Title
is in the custody of a person not the Registered
Owner. Such notification should state the grounds
on which the Certificate is retained.
Dated this 28th day of June 1957.
JOSEPH O'BYRNE,
Registrar of Titles.
SCHEDULE.
Land Certificate of Andrew Brady to 143.
31'.
I3p. of the lands of Lisclone situate in the Barony
of Tullygarvey and County of Cavan being the
lands comprised in said Folio.
20