Previous Page  725 / 822 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 725 / 822 Next Page
Page Background

dwelling give in the prescribed manner an

infected premises notice to the owner of

the dwelling,

the occupier shall be guilty of an offence under this

section and shall be liable on summary conviction

thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or,

at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for

a term not exceeding three months or to both such

fine and such imprisonment.

Section 35. Where

(a)

a person either—

(i) is concerned in selling or letting a

dwelling or showing a dwelling with

a view to its being sold or let, or

(ii) has ceased during the preceding three

months to occupy a dwelling, and

(H)

he is questioned by another person in

terested in such sale or letting as to whether

at any time during the preceding three

months a person has resided in the dwelling

while suffering from an infectious disease,

and

(f)

he makes to the question an answer which

is to his knowledge false or misleading in

any material particular,

he shall be guilty of. an offence under this section

and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof

to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the dis

cretion of the Court, to imprisonment for a term

not exceeding three months or to both such fine

and such imprisonment.

PROFESSIONAL ITEMS

THE practice, common in America, of a Company

(or Corporation, as it is there called), employing a

full-time

solicitor

is

becoming

established

in

England, and has now begun to spread to Scotland.

On the question being raised whether the Company

was entitled to retain any fees recovered by the

solicitor it was discovered that it was very doubtful

whether the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933, covered

the case.

Sec. 37 prohibits acting for the profit of an un

qualified person, but there is an exception in favour

of a solicitor in the employment of a " public

Company." This term is nowhere defined, either

in the Act or in the Companies Act. The offence

too, is enabling an unqualified person to practise

as a solicitor.

Sec. 38 prohibits the sharing of fees with an un

qualified person. There is an exception here of

fees received by a public officer in respect of work

done in the course of his duty;

but what is a

" public officer " ; and does a prohibition of sharing

fees extend to passing over the whole fee ?

Again

sec. 39 prohibits unqualified persons from drawing

writs, and there is an excepting of a " public officer ";

so apparently a public officer is qualified in sec. 38

but unqualified in sec. 39.

Clearly the matter needs to be settled.

In England

the rule is that a solicitor who has agreed in con

sideration of a salary to do the legal work of an

employer who is not a solicitor may agree with

such employer to credit his employer with fees and

expenses recovered up to the extent of his salary and

expenses and reasonable office expenses, the excess

being retained by the solicitor.

The Council has asked that, if possible, a similar

rule should be introduced into the Solicitors Bill

and the terms " public officer " and " public com

pany " defined

therein.

(Scottish Law Gazette,

June, 1947.)

IN O'Donovan v. Cork County Council, 81 I.L.T.R.

133, the question in issue was whether the costs of the

registration of title to cottages, acquired by the local

authority in pursuance of improvement schemes,

and the registration of transfers

of

labourers'

cottages from one local authority to another, should

be taxed by the special taxing officer appointed by

the Minister for Local Government under Article

51

(e)

of the Labourers (Ireland) Order,

1912,

or by the Taxing Master of the High Court. The

question turned on whether the original registra

tion of the title and the registration of the transfers

respectively were part of improvement schemes and

it was held by the majority of the Court that no

distinction could be drawn between the two groups

and that the costs both of the registration of the

title and of the registration of the transfers should

be taxed by the Taxing Master of the High Court.

IN the Matter of the Trusts of the Will and Codicil

of Thomas Boyle, deceased, was reported unofficially

in the Irish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal of

October nth, 1947. This was a case on the subject

of the inability of a solicitor-executor to recover

costs in the event of his acting as a solicitor in the

administration of the deceased's estate. Mr. A.

was appointed executor under a will which contained

no provision enabling him to charge or be paid any

professional or other costs in the event of his acting

as

solicitor. On the death of the testator the

executor appointed Mr. B. a solicitor practising

in the same office but not as a partner of the solicitor

executor. Mr. B. had in fact been abroad during

the period of the administration of the estate and

had appointed Mr. A. to act for him to carry on his

business as a solicitor during his absence.

In

pursuance of this arrangement

the professional

work connected with the administration of the

44