115 / 122
APRIL, 1912]
The Gazette
of
the Incorporated Law Sooiety of Ireland.
1'25
thought the rule was most unjust.
The
Local Government Board said that not more
than a fee of 10s. 6d. should be paid under
any circumstances, but they forgot that
although they might limit the fee they could
not compel a Solicitor to undertake the work
for the money. He thought the Ballymoney
Solicitors were perfectly right to bind them
selves together and refuse any fee of the sort.
It was only about one-sixth, and hardly that,
of the scale fee that would be allowed under
the Solicitors Remuneration Act. What
position was the unfortunate Mr. Armour in ?
There was not a Solicitor who would touch
him, and he could not do the work himself.
He would know as much about making out
an abstract of title as he would about making
an aeroplane.
Mr. Greer most properly
refused the title, and the money was paid into
Court. The only case in which costs had ever
been refused was where the vendor carelessly,
negligently, or unreasonably had refused to
make out title, but that was not the case
here, as Mr. Armour did not do anything like
that. He could not get a Solicitor to do the
work for him, and he could not do it himeslf.
His opinion was that there was nothing
unreasonable in Mr. Armour's conduct, and
he would order the Rural Council to pay the
costs, including Counsel, which were not to
exceed £10, and were to be taxed by the
Registrar.
(Reported
I.L.T.,
Vol. xlvi., page 62.)
LONDONDERRY SPRING ASSIZES.
(Before DODD, J.)
PROCTOR
v.
LIMAVADY RURAL DISTRICT
COUNCIL.
March 21,
1912.—
Labourers Acts Costs—
Furnishing title on behalf of judicial
tenant who had signed an agreement to
purchase under Land Purchase Acts
—
Labourers (Ireland) Order,
1910.
This was an appeal by the defendants
against a decree granted by His Honour
Judge Overend, County Court Judge of
Londonderry, for the sum of
£2
10s. Id.,
amount of a bill of costs of Mr. J. E. Proctor,
Solicitor, for furnishing title in January, 1911,
to a plot of land taken by the Limavady
Rural District Council under the Labourers
Acts, from Mrs. Martha Crilly, who was a
judicial tenant of the land, and had entered
into an agreement to purchase her holding
under the Land Purchase Act of 1903.
The facts of the case are fully reported in
the report of the case before the County
Court, contained in the GAZETTE of February,
1912, page 102.
Mr. Henry, K.C., and Mr. R. E. Osborne
(instructed by Mr. J. C. B. Proctor, LL.D.)
appeared for the plaintiff (Respondent) ;
and
Mr. Wylie
(instructed by Mr. Horner)
appeared for the defendants (Appellants).
Mr. Henry stated that Mr. Proctor had
acted for Mrs. Crilly, on whose land a site
had been taken by the Rural District Council
for the erection of a labourer's cottage. Mr.
Proctor furnished title, and sent in his bill,
amounting to
£2
10s. Id., but received a letter
from the Clerk of the Council to the effect
that, as Mrs. Crilly was a judicial tenant, the
fee payable for deducing title under the
Labourers Order of the Local Government
Board of 1910 was only 10s. 6d. He sub
mitted that that portion of the Local Govern
ment Board Order, 1910, which limited the
term " Owner " or " Lessee " was
ultra vires.
Further, that in this case title to a greater
interest than that of an occupier was called
for by the local authority, and therefore,
under the Housing of the Working Classes
Act, 1890, Sec. 22, which was incorporated
by the Labourers Act, 1906, Sec. 3, he was
entitled to recover the amount sued for.
Mr. Wylie submitted three arguments for
the defence :
First, that Mr. Proctor could
not succeed in an action brought on his own
behalf. A Solicitor could sue his own client
in respect of fees, but he was not entitled
to sue a third party for work done on behalf
of his client. Secondly, that there must be
a certificate of taxation before plaintiff would
be entitled to sue. Thirdly, that the Local
Government Board Order, 1910, is valid and
binding, and the work sued for was done
subsequent to the date of the Order.
Mr. Henry said, as regards the point that
Mr. Proctor could not sue, the Council had
in their letters recognised Mr. Proctor as the
person entitled to put forward the claim.
This point was not raised in the County
Court, where, if it had been, His Honour
would have added the name of Mrs. Crilly
as a co-plaintiff. A certificate of taxation
was not necessary. Mr. Proctor had, under