83 / 266
chance o f it being received in the ordinary course
o f the post was remote the Court could not say
that there was at the outset a proper notice which
must be deemed to be received within the contrac
tual time.
(Getreide-Import-Gesellschaft m.b.h.
v.
Contimar
S.A. Compania Industrial Comercial y Maritima,
1953. x W.L.R. 207.)
UNQUALIFIED CONVEYANCER
Ennis, Ju ly 8th, 1952—Legal Practitioner—
Conveyancer—Preparation o f agreement for sale
by auctioneer—Remuneration—Acting or practising
as a conveyancer contrary to the Conveyancers
(Ireland) Act, 1864 (27 Viet. c. 85. 3).
By section 3 o f the Conveyancers (Ireland) Act
1864, it is provided that “ Every person who shall,
for or in expectation o f any fee, gain or reward in
anywise act or practise as a conveyancer, special
pleader or draughtsman in equity in Ireland, without
being duly qualified to act and practise ” as provided
in section 2 o f the Act, other than and except
barristers-at-law, solicitors, and certain other persons
named thereafter, “ shall forfeit and pay for every
such offence a sum not exceeding twenty pounds
nor less than five pounds, to any person who shall
sue or prosecute for same.”
O’H. the tenant o f a county council cottage
agreed to sell it to M. They decided to go to W.,
an auctioneer, to get the agreement drawn up. The
parties duly went to W.’s office, when the agreement
was drawn up and signed. A sum of 10 - was then
paid by M. to W. under circumstances which are
dealt with fully in the judgment o f O’Byrne, J.
H
eld
: That the auctioneer had acted contrary to
section 3 and was liable to a penalty thereunder.
The facts appear sufficiently from the head-note
and from the judgment o f O’Byrne, J.
Joseph Healy, S.C. and Owen Keane for the
plaintiff.
F.
Vaughan-Buckley, S.C. and John Kenny for
the defendant.
O’Byrne, J., in the course of his judgment said
that the plaintiff had sued for a penalty under the
Conveyancers (Ireland) Act 1864, sec. 3.
His
Lordship was satisfied beyond doubt that the sum
o f ten shillings had in fact been paid to Mr. Walshe
for drawing up the agreement and the only question
was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
Mr. Vaughan-Buckley had submitted that the case
was really in the nature o f a prosecution and that
the same standard o f proof was required. On that
point, his lordship was satisfied that when the
question o f payment had been mentioned Mr.
Walshe had been reluctant to take any money, but
that finally he had taken it. Had the words o f the
Act been in expectation o f money he would not be
in favour o f deciding for the plaintiff for at the time
o f drawing up the agreement the defendant was
not expecting to get any reward, but the words
“ for reward ” in the Act made all the difference.
Since the defendant had had to be pressed to take
the money he would impose the minimum penalty
of £5 with costs in both courts.
Solicitors for Plaintiff:—Kerin, Hickman and
O’Donnell.
Solicitors for Defendant:—P. F. Moloney & Co.
(Plunkett
v.
Walshe, 1952. 86, I.L.T .R ., 167.)
SOLICITORS’ APPRENTICES
Contributions under the Social Welfare Act,
1952
The following circular has been sent by the Council
to the Bar Associations—
D
ear
S
ir
,
I have been directed to draw the attention o f the
officers and committees o f Bar Associations to the
provisions o f Schedule I of the Social Welfare Act
1952 defining insurable persons. The Council are
advised that under the terms o f the Schedule a
solicitor’s apprentice is an insurable person whether
or not he receives a salary or wrage and whether or
not a premium is payable under the apprenticeship
deed. Representations have been made to the Min
ister for Social Welfare asking that solicitors’
apprentices (other than law clerk apprentices under
section 16) should be excluded by regulation from
the definition of insurable persons. The deputation,
which was received by the Secretary of the Depart
ment, however, are of the opinion that it is unlikely
that the Minister will accede to the Society’s request.
It is, apparently, the considered policy of the Gov
ernment to draw within the scope of the Social
Welfare scheme the whole body consisting of
700,000 employees and apprentices within the State
as well as Civil Servants whose remuneration does
not exceed £600 per annum.
I f solicitors’ apprentices are not excluded from
the scheme weekly contributions must be made in
respect of them. In the case o f an apprentice who
does not receive a salary the responsibility for the
weekly contribution of 4 8d. will be upon the master.
The object o f this letter is to draw the attention of
the members of Bar Associations to the position
so that a solicitor, when arranging the amount of
the premium payable under an apprenticeship deed,