106 / 122
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
[MARCH, 1912
of some land for sale, who was a client of his,
and made certain proposals,
and made
arrangements to meet an architect. With
regard to the investments, the Solicitor, on
a similar occasion, told the client that certain
bonds were a good investment, and suggested
that the client should invest in them. The
client went to his broker and bought some in
the ordinary way ;
and for this a charge was
made by the Solicitor.
In another after-
dinner conversation the Solicitor suggested a
speculation in rubber shares, and some were
bought, the client saying that he regarded it
as a joint speculation of the Solicitor and
himself, but the Solicitor made a charge as
such in regard to the transaction.
The Taxing Master had allowed the items
complained of, and this was a summons to
review the taxation.
Mr. Justice Warrington, in the course of
his judgment, said that on all questions as to
the retainer of a Solicitor he was guided by
the words of Vice-Chancellor Turner
in
Crossley
v.
Crowther
(9, Hare, 384), who laid
down that where there was a conflict as to
the authority between the Solicitor and client,
without further evidence, weight must be
given to the affidavit against, rather than to
the affidavit of the Solicitor.
As regarded the purchase of land, for all
the client knew to the contrary, the work was
being done by the Solicitor in a friendly way,
knowing that he had a client with land for
sale, and that the other client was minded to
buy some land. This client positively denied
that he gave any instructions to the Solicitor
to do business as such in regard to the matter,
and the Court could not draw any inference of
retainer. As to the investments—advising
about investments and making them for
I
clients was not Solicitors' business ;
though
I
where a Solicitor was retained to act generally
for a client, he might properly give advice as
to investments and charge for it. But here
the Solicitor merely did certain specified pieces
of business ;
and the positive denials of the
client that he gave the Solicitor a retainer
must be accepted, and the objections to the
taxation allowed.
(Reported
The Times Law Reports,
Vol.
xxviii., page 201.)
Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906.
COSTS OF APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF
STATUTORY RECEIPTS.
THE Tralee Rural District Council having
acquired compulsorily certain plots, for the
purpose of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts,
upon the estate of Lord Headley. the costs of
Messrs. O'Keeffe and Lynch, Solicitors for the
Owner, of proving title, came before Mr.
McHugh, Taxing Officer, appointed under
the Labourers (Ireland) Order, for taxation.
The owner's Solicitors claimed costs against
the Rural District Council in respect of the
approval and . execution of thirty statutory
receipts taken by the Rural District Council
in respect of the thirty plots acquired, none
of such receipts were for an amount exceeding
£60, but the aggregate amount of compensa
tion for the entire of the lands acquired did
exceed £60.
The Taxing Officer having expressed a
desire that the question of the allowance of
the costs against the Rural District Council
of the approval and execution of such receipts
should be argued before him by Counsel, Mr.
Macrory (instructed by Messrs. O'Keeffe &
Lynch) was heard in support of the claim of
the owner's Solicitors upon the 28th February.
A separate receipt in respect of each plot
having been required by the Rural District
Council, it was admitted that the case was
not within Section 11, Sub-Sec. (4) of the
Labourers
(Ireland) Act,
1906,
but
the
Taxing Officer was not satisfied that the
receipt was a conveyance within the meaning
of Section 82 of the Lands Clauses Con
solidation Act, 1845.
The owner's Solicitors have received the
following letter from the Taxing Officer :—
Offices—50 Lr. Sackville Street,
Dublin,
2nd March,
1912.
Tralee R.D.C. and Lord Headley'& Costs.
DEAR SIRS,
I have carefully considered the" arguments
which were addressed to me by Counsel for
Lord Headley at the taxation of the above
costs on the 28th ulto., in support of the view
that the owner was entitled to have allowed
to him on taxation the costs necessarily and
properly incurred by him in connection with
the approval and execution of some thirty