Previous Page  89 / 822 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 89 / 822 Next Page
Page Background

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