166 / 266
The adoption o f the report was seconded by Mr.
Joseph Barrett, President of the Incorporated Law
Society, and passed unanimously.
The existing
Directors were re-appointed and Messrs. H. D.
Hurley and Terence de Vere White were reappointed
as honorary auditors. On the motion o f Mr. C. J.
Gore Grimes, a vote of thanks to the Press was
passed and on the motion o f Mr. H. P. Mayne, Vice-
Chairman, the meedng passed a vote o f thanks to
Mr. O’Brien for his conduct o f the meeting and his
services to the Association.
PRACTICE NOTE.
Exhibits in Affidavits.
I
n
the High Court recently, Mr. Justice Dixon drew
the attention o f solicitors to the necessity of properly
identifying documents exhibited in affidavits and
said that this was particularly necessary when a
bundle o f correspondence was exhibited. In the
latter case the correspondence should be identified
as far as possible, e.g. by setting out in a schedule
the dates o f the letters and the parties thereto. If
identification in some such way is not feasible, the
only alternative is to exhibit the letters separately.
His Lordship remarked that it is irregular and
improper to exhibit a group o f letters not fully
identified.
DUBLIN SOLICITORS’ BAR
ASSOCIATION.
Costs under the Enforcement o f Court
Orders Acts.
F
ollowing
discussions between a deputation o f the
Association and District Justice Fitzpatrick, the
following scale o f costs has been agreed upon in
matters arising under the Enforcement o f Court
Orders Acts :—
I
nstalment
O
rders
Outlay. Costs.
Totals.
s. d. £
S.
d. £ s. d.
Not exceeding £5
15 0 I I 0
I
16 0
3
3
£ ^
5
D 0 I
I I
6
2
6 6
3
3
3
3
£25
D 0 2
2
0
2
17 0
„
,3
£50
D 0
3 3
0
3
18 0
Exceeding £30
D 0
4 4
0
4
O 0
Add 6/- to above for each extra Defendant.
C
ommittal
O
rders
Where Committal Order s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d.
granted: ...
9
6
2
0 0
2
9
6
V
ariation
O
rders
Outlay. Costs.
Totals.
Where
Variation s. d. £ s. d.
£
s. d.
Order granted: ... io o 2 o o 2 10 o
Add 2s 6d. for each extra defendant.
These costs have come into effect as and from
1 st February, 1954.
Dublin County Council ; Small Dwellings
(Acquisition) Acts.
B
y
agreement with the Law Agent of the Dublin
County Council, it has now been arranged that
instructions which have heretofore been embodied
in the Requisitions issued in cases arising under
the Small Dwellings Act and heretofore numbered
1, 2, 3 (
a
) and (
b
) will be omitted.
DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST.
Counsel fo r the plaintiff and defendant respectively in
a matrimonial suit discussed terms o f settlement before
the trial with the consent and authority o f the parties and
their solicitors. The recognised channel o f communication
o f any agreement reached was through the solicitors to
the client. Counsel reached agreement as to the terms o f
consent which would be made a rule o f Court, and the
terms were endorsed on counsel’s briefs. Counsel fo r the
defendant informed his solicitor on the telephone o f the
terms o f the consent, and the solicitor informed the
defendant. Through some defect, either in Counsel’s
communication to the solicitor or in the solicitor’s hearing
or understanding o f it, the terms o f the consent communi
cated to the defendant were not those endorsed on Counsel’s
briefs, and this fa c t did not become apparent until some
time after the consent had been made a rule o f Court.
The defendant then repudiated it. The term o f the consent
so repudiated by the defendant was that the wife should
be entitled to alimony, not as is usual during the join t
lives o f the parties, but fo r her life even i f she survived
the husband and that the alimony should be secured by a
charge on his property. Was the defendant bound by the
terms o f the consent
?
No, it was held by Kingsmill Moore, J ., that
on the authorities counsel in the exercise of his
.discretion, may without express authority from
the client and even against the client’s instructions
bind the client by a compromise where the restriction
on counsel’s apparent and implied authority have
not been communicated to the other side. (Swinfen
v.
Swinfen 25 L .J.C .P . 303 ; Strauss
v.
Francis L.R .
1 Q.B. 379 ; Gethings and Another
v.
Cioney 48
I.L.T .R . 53). This is not restricted to a qomptomise
8