179 / 266
Vol. 48
No. 1
May,
1954
THE GAZETTE
oj the
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF TRET.AND
P ruidm t
J
oseph
B
arrett
Vict-Prtsidcnts
J
ohn
J . N
ash
J
ohn
R . H
alpin
Scerttarj
E
ric
A . P
lunkett
FOR CIRCULATION AMONG MEMBERS
MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL.
13TH M
a y
: The President in the chair; also
present:—Messrs. John J. Nash and John R.
Halpin, Vice-Presidents ; Niall S. Gaffney, James R.
Quirke, Dermot P. Shaw, John B. Jermyn, Barry
M. O’Meara, Christopher E. Callan, Edmund Hayes,
Joseph P. Tyrrell, Peter E. O’Connell, John Maher,
Sean O hUadhaigh, Charles J. Downing, Thomas
A. O’Reilly, Louis E . O’Dea, Henry J. Blake, John
Carrigan, George G . Overend, Ralph J. Walker,
George A . Nolan, William J. Norman, John J.
Sheil, Desmond J. Collins, Desmond J. Mayne,
Patrick F. O’Reilly, Patrick R. Boyd, Cornelius J.
Daly, James J. O’Connor, Francis J. Lanigan,
Derrick M. Martin.
The following was among the business transacted :
New course o f lectures for apprentices.
On a report from the Court o f Examiners, the
Council decided to establish a new course o f lectures
to be known as Course D on the subject o f taxation,
including death duties and income tax. It is expected
that this course of lectures will start in October
next.
Probate Office.
Members wrote complaining of the action of the
Probate Office in disclosing particulars to the press
before they were available to members as solicitors
for the executors. The Council expressed the view
that the practice o f giving particulars of the wills
and assets o f deceased persons is open to objection,
but that if such information must be given it should
not be available to the press until after the grant has
been sent by the Probate Office to the solicitors
for the personal representatives. A complaint was
also received that there had been delay in sending
the grant to the executors’ solicitors by registered
post in accordance with the practice recently
adopted and it was decided to make enquiries.
Election to charge item costs instead o f the
commission scale fee.
Members acted for the lessors o f property on a
lease for twenty-one years at a rack rent. The lessors’
solicitors submitted an itemised bill for payment by
the lessees. The lessees maintain that the costs should
be drawn on the commission scale. No notice of
intention to charge an itemised bill was given either
to the lessees or their solicitor prior to the delivery
1