298 / 324
and the effect of any residual disability would be
considered. The nature of the injuries should as
far as possible be conveyed in a non-technical
manner that is easily understood. It is often difficult
for a judge or jury to determine a conflict of medical
opinion particularly when they are sharply divided ;
this is due to such factors as competence and skill,
partisanship and bias.
In jury trials, competence
as a witness is equally important. There is a tendency
to give the injured party the benefit of all possible
leniency, as well as
a
tendency to exaggeration
by way of advance preparation against hostile cross-
examination which will tend to make the doctor tone
down his first judgment. Mr. McGrath concluded
by giving full details of the New York Medical
Expert
Testimony
Project
sponsored
by
the
American Bar Association in 1952 ;
the basic idea
was to set up panels of neutral, outstanding physi
cians in various branches of medicine.
This paper was followed by a lively discussion
which was opened by Mr. Herman Good, solicitor.
Mr. Good said he thought it was desirable that
Courts assessing damages in personal injuries litiga
tion should be aided
by
assessors. Mr. McCarthy,
S.C., retired Circuit Judge, paid tribute to the Dublin
juries for their painstaking labour and approach to
legal problems when dealing with civil litigation.
Dr. Martin Dyer, Chairman of the Executive Council
of the Irish Medical Association, asserted
that
doctors in a case were primarily there to see that
social justice was done, and that other inducements
were only minor considerations.
ON Thursday zyth March, 1958, a Symposium on
the subject of " Infectious Carriers with special
reference to Section 38 of the Health Act, 1947 "
will be held at 8 p.m. in the Royal Hibernian Hotel.
It will be recalled that Section 38 gives stringent
powers to detain and isolate persons who are prob
able sources of infection. The main speakers will
be Mr. Arthur Cox, Solicitor ; Mr. T. A. Doyle, S.C.;
Dr. P. Flynn, M.O.H., Co. Westmeath;
and
Dr. Thomas Murphy, Professor of Social and
Preventive Medicine, U.C.D.
Mr. Dermot P. Shaw was instrumental in arrang
ing a largely attended meeting on the i zth February,
1958, in the Shamrock Lodge Hotel, Athlone, when
local solicitors, barristers and doctors decided to
form a Midlands Regional Branch of the Society.
Dr. Frank McLaughlin, a Committee member,
attended a meeting in Waterford on 2 5th January,
1958, for the purpose of establishing a Branch there ;
he
subsequently
delivered
a
paper on
" The
Wolfenden Report."
The Council of the Society has set up a Sub
committee to examine the problem of " Unnatural
Offences " in this country. The Council, following
the findings of the Wolfenden Committee in Britain,
considered
this problem
to be
important, and
accordingly instructed the Sub-committee to make a
general survey of the position here, and to make
recommendations.
This Sub-committee consists
of: Mr. J. McCarthy, S.C. (chairman) ; Mr. Niall
McCarthy, Barrister-at-Law ; Professor E. Exshaw,
Barrister-at-Law; Mr. Herman Good, Solicitor;
Dr. F. McLaughlin ;
Dr. J. Eustace and Dr. F.
Bourke.
DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST
Taxing master disallows fee for leading counsel
—
court
unable to interfere.
LORD
JUSTICE PARKER and Lord Justice Sellers
dismissed this appeal by the plaintiff from a decision
of Mr.
Justice Donovan
in
chambers
on
i9th December, 1957, dismissing an appeal from the
taxing master's disallowance of the fee for leading
counsel, in a trial relating to damages only for
personal injuries to the plaintiff; liability had been
admitted. There was controversy as to whether
symptoms from which the plaintiff was suffering
related to the injury, and there was two medical
witnesses on each side. £350 was paid into Court,
and in the result the plaintiff was awarded £650,
including £400 general damages.
Lord Justice Parker, giving judgment, said that
the master stated that he was of opinion that the
circumstances of the case did not justify the briefing
of two counsel; that no question of principle was
involved as to the allowance or disallowance of two
counsel and that it was a matter entirely for his
discretion.
Before the Judge and in this Court it was argued
for the plaintiff that the master erred in principle.
It was at one time suggested that Mr. Justice
Donovan took the view that the question whether
there should be two counsel or one was not a matter
of principle at all, but only quantum, and that
therefore he had no jurisdiction. He (his Lordship)
thought it was quite clear that all Mr. Justice
Donovan did was to say : " If I had been deciding
this matter I might well, indeed I would, have come
to a different conclusion." But this was a matter
prima
facie
for
the discretion of the Master.
Mr. Thompson admitted that he had to show that
the master went wrong in principle.
In matters such as the question whether there
should be two counsel allowed or one, it was im
possible to say that there was no principle involved.
Mr. Thompson argued that it had now become, if
not the rule, at any rate the prevailing practice that