65 / 144
JULY, 1934]
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
11
CIRCUIT COURT COSTS.
The case of " McKenna v. Ledwidge,"
heard in the Dublin Circuit Court, was one
of ejectment for overholding. The premises
were held under a weekly tenancy at the
weekly rent of £1 11s. Od.
On taxation of Plaintiff's Bill of Costs of
ejectment and an application for summary
judgment, the County Registrar disallowed
charges for attending to fib Civil Bill, drawing
affidavit of Plaintiff to groundmotion for sum–
mary judgment, attending to file ; affidavit of
service of Notice to Quit, attending to file
same ;
attending to file Notice of Motion for
Summary Judgment ;
perusing affidavit of
Defendant ; drawing affidavit of Plaintiff in
reply, attending to file ;
attending to file
Notice of Trial ;
perusing notice to produce ;
attending to file costs. Plaintiff applied to
the Court to vary or set aside the dis–
allowances, and that the charges be allowed
Plaintiff as reasonable and proper and in
accordance with Scale of Fees in the Third
Schedule to the Rules of the Circuit Court,
and particularly in Parts III. and X. thereof ;
or, in the alternative, that same be referred
back to the County Registrar for review.
The application came before Judge Davitt
on the 17th May, 1934, when the following
judgment was delivered :
" This came before me by way of appeal
from the taxation of the County Registrar
in taxing a Bill of Costs (Plaintiff's bill) in
ejectment for overholding. The point at
issue really amounts to this :
that the
County Registrar disallowed certain items
in that bill which were charged, not under
the scale actually relating to Ejectments
for Overholding, but from the Miscellaneous
Costs Scale. These items mainly consist of
attendances to file documents and to serve
documents, and the point really at issue is :
as to whether the scales under Schedule III.
of the Rules under various headings like
' Costs of Action,'
' Contract, Costs of
Action,'
' Tort, and Costs of Ejectment
Proceedings,' are intended to be exhaustive
or not. There is very little to go on in the
interpretation of the Rules in this point,
and I have given my best consideration to
it, and have come to the conclusion that
these Schedules of Costs are intended to be
exhaustive, and in their case resort should
not be had to the Miscellaneous Costs
Schedule for the purpose of increasing
costs.
I cannot go further than that.
I
agree with the County Registrar in the
whole of his taxation."
INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION RESULT
At the Intermediate Examination held on
2nd June, the following passed the examina–
tion :
PASSED WITH MERIT.
1. Matthew Purcell.
2. Desmond L. McAllister.
3.
Patrick Fitzgibbon.
4. Myles P. Gavagan.
5. Liam J. Lysaght.
6. Thomas J. Kirwan.
7. Margaret Carey.
8.
John D. Guinan.
9. Emily M. J. Cosgreave.
10.
Lucas O'Dubhghaill.
11. Edward E. Emerson.
12. George P. Andrews.
13. Richard O'Brien, Jim.
PASSED.
George C. V. Brittain.
John E. G. Byrne.
Daniel J. Carbery.
John B. Farrell.
Shane P. Flynn.
William Fry.
John J. G. Gilmartin.
James R. C. Green.
Joseph G. Groarke.
Leonard Hayden.
James P. Hegarty.
Raymond G. Kenny.
Ernest 0. Knapp.
Joseph S. Martin.
Patrick T. Monahan.
William B. Montgomery..
Patrick J. Mulcahy.
Brian S. Murphy.
James W. A. M. McCabev
Patrick J. Neilan, Jun.
Edward J. O'Brien.
Caoimhghin A. R. O'Cuinn..
Francis A. J. O'Hare.
James Rowlette.
Brian P. G. Taylor.
Patrick J. Walsh.
Esmonde T. White.
Benjamin J. deB. Whyte.
Forty-eight candidates attended :
forty-
one passed ; seven failed.
ALL communications connected with THE
GAZETTE (other than advertisements) should
be addressed to the Secretary of the Society,
Solicitors' Buildings, Four Courts, Dublin,
N.W.8.