107 / 112
APRIL, 1910]
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
103
they are not imposed as a punishment on
the party who pays them, nor given as a
bonus
to
the party who
receives
them.
Therefore, if the extent of the damnification
can be found out, the extent to which costs
ought to be allowed is also ascertained."
If, in the face of the evidence which the
learned County Court Judge accepted, the
defendant in the present action were ordered
to pay costs, those costs would be given as
a bonus to the party who received them.
That seemed contrary both to justice and
common sense. The decision in
Harold v.
Smith
was fifty years old, and his Lordship
was not prepared to depart from it, and on
that ground he thought the appeal must fail.
Then came a further and difficult point under
Section 5 of the Attorneys and Solicitors
Remuneration Act, 1870. There was no
express evidence whether the agreement in
the present case was in writing or not ;
but
assuming that it was a parol agreement, it
was said on behalf of the plaintiff that
Section 5 only applied to an agreement in
writing.
It is apparent that the proviso at
the end of Section 5,
though not purely
declaratory, was an application of the settled
common law principle to the particular facts,
and was absolutely necessary, having regard
to the first part of Section 5.
In the view
of .the Court below that proviso applied not
merely to an agreement in writing but to any
agreement by parol of which, as the Court
of Appeal had held in
Clare
v.
Joseph,
the
client could take advantage, and his Lordship
was not prepared to say, although he felt
more difficulty about it than his brethren,
that that view was wrong. On the Common
Law point, therefore, his Lordship thought
that the defendant was right, and he was not
prepared to say that he was not right on the
other point also, so on both grounds the
appeal must be dismissed.
The Lord Justices also delivered judgments
dismissing the appeal.
(Reported
The Times Law Reports,
Vol.
xxvi., page 321).
Irish Land Commission.
THE following Sittings of the Court of the
Land Commission for hearing Appeals .have
been provisionally arranged :—
Dublin, April 15th.—Leinster (part of)
Limerick, April 19th.—Co. Limerick and Co.
Tipperary (part of).
Clonmel, April 21st.—Co. Waterford and Co.,
Tipperary (part of).
Ennis, April 26th.—Co. Clare (part of).
Cork, April 28th.—Co. Cork (part of).
Dublin, May 5th.—Leinster (part of).
Killarney, May 10th.—Co. Kerry (part of).
Dingle, May 12th.—Co. Kerry (part of).
Dublin, May 17th.—Leinster (part of).
Solicitors' Apprentices' Debating Society,
Session 1910.
PROGRAMME FOR EASTER AND TRINITY
SITTINGS, 1910.
Meetings to be held at Eight o'.clock, p.m.,
in the Hall of the Incorporated Law Society,
Four Courts, Dublin.
EASTER SITTINGS.
April 18th.—Debate—" That
the Future
Interests of
Ireland depend on
the
Development
of
her
Agricultural
resources."
April 25th.—Legal Debate.—That the Case
of Cooke
v.
Midland Great Western Rail
way of Ireland (1909), A.C. 229, was
wrongly decided."
May 2nd.—Debate.—" That the action of
the House of Lords in rejecting the
Budget was unconstitutional."
May 9th.—Impromptu Speeches.
May
16th.—Legal
Debate.—That
the
Dedsion of the House of Lords in the
Case of O'Reilly
v.
McCall (1910), 2
J.R. 42, was wrong."
TRINITY SITTINGS.
June 6th.—Debate.—" That Censorship of
Literature
is essential for the moral
welfare of the Community."
June 13th.—Impromptu Speeches.
(Candidates for Offices for Session 1910
1911 to be nominated).
June 20th.—Debate.—" That the Socialistic-
Tendency of the present day 'is to be
deplored."
June 27th.—Essay Night.
(Result of Election of Officers for the
Session 1910-1911 to be declared).