37 / 122
AUGUST, 1911 J
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
Obituary.
MR. HENRY A. LEE. Solicitor, Dublin, died
upon the 18th July, 1911, at Dublin.
Mr. Lee, who was admitted in Hilary
Term, 1869, under the special provisions of
30 & 31 Vie., Cap. 114, Section 26, practised
formerly in partnership with his father, the
late Mr, Robert C. Lee, at 2 Inns Quay,
Dublin, and latterly at 19 & 20 Fleet Street,
Dublin, under the style of Robert Lee & Son.
MR. EDWARD H. DE MOLEYNS. Solicitor,
Dublin, died upon the 24th Jiily, 1911, at his
residence 18 Longford Terrace, Monkstown,
Co. Dublin.
Mr. De Moleyns, who was admitted in
Michaelmas Term, 1843, practised at 17
Herbert Street, Dublin, up to the year 1875,
when he was appointed Solicitor to the Bank
of Ireland, which position he held until the
year 1898, when he retired from practice.
Recent Decisions affecting Solicitors.
(Notes of decisions, whether in reported or
unreported cases, of interest to Solicitors, are
invited from Members.)
KING'S BENCH DIVISION.
(Before Dodd, J.)
O'Brien
v.
O'Brien.
June
2, 1911.—
Costs
—
Taxation
—
Witnesses'
expenses—Principal witness.
IN an action under Lord Campbell's Act,
owing to the delay on the part of the defen
dant to admit certain facts, the main witness
on behalf of the plaintiff was brought from
London. The Taxing Master disallowed the
entire of the costs in respect thereto :
Held,
that the Taxing Master was wrong
in so doing, and that the exercise of his
discretion did not extend so far as to enable
him to disallow the costs of the main witness
upon whose evidence the entire of the action
depended. Regard should be had to counsel's
directions
for proofs, but
they are not
conclusive.
This was an action under
the Fatal
Accidents Act, 1846, brought by the plaintiff,
Kate O'Brien, against the defendant, James
O'Brien, for damages.
It appeared that the
defendant had killed the husband of the
plaintiff by a blow of a spade or shovel.
The defendant was indicted and tried for
manslaughter
and
found
guilty,
arid
sentenced
to a
term of
twelve months
imprisonment. The civil action was tried at
•
the Spring Assizes at Sligo before a common
jury of the county, and the jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff, and awarded her
£80 damages.
Judgment was duly entered
for the plaintiff with costs. On the taxation
of the plaintiff's costs objection was taken
before the Taxing Master to an item of
£16 2s., being the amount of the expenses
paid to a medical witness, Dr. Howard V.
Gatchell, of London.
The objection was
upheld and the item disallowed. The facts
in respect to this item, as appeared from the
affidavits filed in the case, were as follow :—
By a letter dated Feb. 18, 1911, the plaintiff's
solicitor asked the solicitors for the defendant
to admit the deposition made by Dr. Gatchell
on June 7, 1910, for the purpose of the
criminal proceedings before the magistrates.
The deposition in substance stated that the
deceased had died from an abscess which had
eaten into the brain, and that it was caused
by a heavy blow which might have been
inflicted by a spade or shovel. By a letter
dated Feb. 27, 1911, the solicitors for the
defendant agreed to the course proposed.
By a further letter dated March 3, 1911, the
solicitor for the plaintiff, on the advice of
senior counsel, asked for an admission of the
facts proved by Dr. Gatchell in his deposition,
a summary of which accompanied the letter.
On March 6, 1911,
the solicitors for the
defendant replied, stating that subject to an
addition which
they made
they had no
objection to admitting the facts. The pro
posed addendum was a statement to the
effect that in his (Dr. Gatchell's) opinion the
deceased would have stood a better chance
of recovery if he had been properly attended
to immediately after he had received the
injuries. On the same day the solicitor for
the
plaintiff
despatched
the
following
answer :—" As I did not receive your letter
as to admitting the summary of Dr. Gatchell's
evidence until one o'clock to-day, I could
not take the responsibility of going on with
the case in the absence of the doctor. He
will, therefore, be; -in attendance." The trial
took place on' the following day, March 7,
1911. The report of the Taxing Master was
as follows :—
.v~.Y '••••
nth Miiv,
1911.
;;d (1) The following is the statement of the grounds
' and reasons of my decision on the objection of the
plaintiff to the disallowances in her costs taxed by