684 / 822
applicant applied for an order requiring delivery
of a detailed bill in respect of work for which a
gross sum had been charged in 1940. No applica–
tion to have the costs taxed had been made within
twelve months of delivery of the demand. The
work charged for in the gross sum included negotia–
tion of a loan secured by mortgage which was not
secured by freehold or leasehold land within the
jurisdiction. The net point
for decision was
whether the costs attracted the scale fee in which
case they would be outside clause 2 (<r) of the General
Order of 1882 and therefore outside the ambit of
the Gross Sums Order of 1934 (which covers only
cases within clause 2
(c)
), or whether they fell
within clause
z (c)
in which case the Gross Sum
Order applied.
It was held that no scale fee was
chargeable on the negotiation of a loan secured by a
mortgage that did not include property within the
jurisdiction, and that accordingly the costs were
chargeable under clause 2
(c), and that the Gross
Sum Order applied. Even if this construction of
the General Order of 1882 were incorrect the Court
was not prepared in the circumstances to make an
order for delivery of a bill of costs under section 64
of the Solicitors' Act, 1932.
Landlord and Tenant Act costs
IN the
Irish ~Law Times and Solicitors' journal
of
April 5th, Judge Shannon is reported as having said
after the termination of an application for a new
lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931,
that as a general practice he did not award costs to
either party, but that in the case before him the
new rent having been fixed at about double that
under the expired term and as the highest offer made
had been grossly inadequate he would award the
costs of the applicant to the landlords.
Costs in Criminal Cases
IN O'Connor
v.
Coleman
(81
I.L.T.R. 42)
the
statute and case law on a number of questions on
costs in criminal cases and the interpretation of the
Attornies and Solicitors Act, 1870, was exhaustively
reviewed by Counsel and discussed in his judgment
by the President of the High Court.
Among
the points of interest in the case for solicitors are the
following :
(i) There is some support for the
proposition that a solicitor having delivered a bill
of costs in a civil matter is bound by it and is not
entitled to deliver a second bill to rectify a mistake,
but there is no statute or rule of Court to prevent
the delivery of such a second bill in a criminal
matter.
In such a case it is a matter for the dis–
cretion of the Court to sanction or disallow it.
(2) The provisions of the Attornies and Solicitors'
Act, 1870, which deal with agreements as to costs
for payment by a gross sum or otherwise between
solicitors and their clients do not apply to criminal
proceedings. The Act is expressly excluded from
applying to costs coming within the Solicitors'
Remuneration Act, 1881, by section 9 of the latter
Act. The Attornies and Solicitors' Act, 1870,
has always been regarded as applying to Ireland,
but his Lordship was not quite clear that it did so
apply.
(The Act is an important one, and if it
were judicially held inapplicable to this country,
the established practice of the last eighty years would
be upset.
It is hoped that any existing doubts
will be removed in the Solicitors' Bill.)
(3) A
person who has been convicted of a felony, whose
retrial has been ordered by the Court of Criminal
Appeal, may notwithstanding
the provision of
the Forfeiture Act, 1870, enter into a valid agree–
ment with his solicitor as to costs, at any time
subsequent to the order for the new trial, and before
his subsequent conviction, as the original conviction
is quashed pending the result of the new trial.
From this reasoning it would seem that a convict
to whom the disabilities'of the Forfeiture Act, 1870,
apply is incapable of entering into a valid contract
with his solicitor as to the costs of his defence, and
that unless either payment or an agreement therefor
has been made before conviction the costs may be
irrecoverable.
(4) There
is no act
in
Ireland
corresponding to the English Costs in Criminal
Cases, 1908, and there is no prescribed scale of costs
in. criminal cases in either the District Court, the
Circuit Court or the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The Court, however, has jurisdiction over such costs
as part of its jurisdiction over its own officers, and
the most convenient way of dealing with them
in the absence of prescribed scales is to send them
to a Taxing Master for a report. This procedure
is analogous to that laid down by R.S.C. (Ir.), 1905,
O. LXV. r. 65 (25).
EXAMINATION RESULTS
At the Preliminary Examination for intending
apprentices to Solicitors held on the gth and loth
days of April, the following passed the examination
and their names are arranged in order of merit:
1. Patrick J. McCormack.
2. Patrick J. Creagh.
3. Patrick N. Downes.
4. Patrick J. Cusack.
5. Thomas P. Kelly.
Seven candidates attended :
five passed;
two
were postponed.
Final Examination
At
the Final Examination for apprentices
to
Solicitors held on the i st and znd April, the following
75-3