105 / 112
APRIL, 7910]
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
101
(Ireland) Act, 1891, and were also entitled,
as regards the plot purchased from Callan,
to fair remuneration for such work as was
necessarily done by them in consequence of
the plot purchased from Callan being part
only of the land of which Callan was registered
owner, and were also entitled, as regards the
plot purchased from Long, to fair remunera
tion for such work as was necessarily done by
them in consequence not merely of the fact
that the plot purchased from Long was part
only of the land of which Long was registered
owner, but also of the fact that Long's land
was registered subject to equities that had
to be discharged as regards the plot purchased
by the council, and also of the further fact
that Long's farm was subject to a charge
ihat had to be redeemed so far as it related
to the plot purchased by the council.
The
matter now came before the Court on motion
on notice by Messrs. Wilson & Simms that
the taxation should be reviewed as to the
items that the Taxing Master had disallowed,
and that such items should be reinstated, or
that it should be declared, that the Master
had jurisdiction to allow such items under
Schedule II. of the Solicitors Remuneration
Act, 188], and the General Orders, and that
the bill should be referred back to the Master
with a direction that such items should be
taxed according to said Schedule and General
Orders.
Madden, J.—The guinea fee does not apply
to either Callan or Long's case, in each of
which there was an apportionment of the
terminable annuity, whilst in Long's case
there was further work arising out of the
facts that Long's land had been registered
subject
to equities and afterwards was
burdened with a charge.
In my opinion
neither of these sales are " provided for "
within the meaning of s. (/) of the scale of
costs and fees to be allowed solicitors in
proceedings under the Local Registration of
Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, so I must send the
bill back to the Taxing Master with a direction
that this scale of fees is not applicable to any
part of it, and that the costs, including those
of the - attempted purchase from Marshall,
must- be- taxed
in accordance with
the
schedule -of fees in proceedings before- the
Land Judge. The county council have
failed in their contention ; Messrs. Wilson "&
Simms,
in asking
that. they', should be
declared entitled to such fees as are payable
under
Schedule
II.
of
the
Solicitors
Remuneration Act and the several orders,
have asked for more than they can
get, so
each side must abide their own costs.
(Reported
Irish Law Times Reports,
Vol.
xliv., page 62).
KING'S BENCH DIVISION ^ENGLAND).
(Before Pickford,. J.)
,,
V. ...
Medley
v.
The London United ••Tramways
(Limited)
and'.the,... London - G'eneral
Omnibus (Limited),
-.•••.•• ..-.•, •;•.•;
Feb.
23, 1910.—
Two Defendants separately
represented—Plaintiff successfill against
one defendant—Costs payable to 'success
ful defendant recoverable from unsuccess
ful defendant.
'
•'"•'•'•'•
-
The Plaintiff, claimed damages for p.erso.nal
injuries against two sets of defendants who
were separately represented.
It appeared that the. plaintiff", Mr. Charley
Medley, a wheelwright, of Haven Lane,
Baling, was, on November 23,
1908,
a
passenger on a motor-omnibus of'the London
General Omnibus Company going along High
Street, Acton, and when he was about to
alight he was struck by the near-side hind
wheel, which suddenly came off, with the
result that his left leg and foot'were'pinned
between the wheel and the step.
In High
Street, Acton, the London United Tramways
have tramway lines and are responsible for
the proper repair and the 'upkeep of the lines:
and of the adjoining roadway -and' itraefc.-
The plaintiff alleged that the lines and track'
or adjoining roadway were in a;'negligent
state of disrepair, and in such a condition,
as to constitute a nuisance, with-'the-•result
that the wheel of the motor-omnibus was
wrenched off or loosened so that it came* off,1
The plaintiff also alleged that'the London!
General Omnibus Company were •negligent'
in using an omnibus with a defective wheclv
and in not avoiding a part of the' roadway
that was in disrepair. Both defendant GofrK
panics denied all liability. The plaintiff's*
out-of-pocket expenses were about £100, and
his ability to do his work had been impaired;
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff
for £4'5Q"against the London "General Omnibus'
Company only, and they found thatr.tne
accident was not caused" byr negligeneeTof
the tramway company..: :.
...:
,
;\ira