137 / 338
Vol.
No.
JULY,
1959
THE GAZETTE
of the
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND
President
JOHN R. HALPIN,
Vice-Presidents
JOHN J. NASH
CORNELIUS J. DALY
Secretary
ERIC A. PLUNKETT
FOR CIRCULATION AMONG MEMBERS
MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL
JULY znd.—The President in the Chair.
Also
present, Messrs. Comerford, O'Connor, McCarron,
O'Connell, Noonan, Quirke, Lanigan, Gilmore,
Walker, Martin, Green, Overend, Collins, \Vhite,
O'Donnell, GafTney,
Carrigan, Kelly,
Taylor,
O'Reilly, Shaw, Nolan, George A. Nolan, Shell,
Mayne.
The following was among the business transacted.
Pleadings during long vacation
It was decided that the Society's representatives
on the Superior Courts Rules Committee should be
asked to bring before that committee a proposal by
the Society that the rule of court which provides
that pleadings may not be delivered during the
long vacation should be revoked.
Accountant General, High Court
It was decided to make representations to the
appropriate quarters that the "practice in the office
of the Accountant General, High Court, whereby
payments will not be made during the long vacation
should be changed.
Insurance Company. Defence to negligence
action inconsistent with position appearing in
negotiations
A member was instructed by Miss A and Mrs. B,
driver and passenger in a motor car to institute
proceedings for personal injuries in respect of a
collision with a car driven by C. C at the time of
the accident held the other car involved in the
collision on hire from his employers X, Ltd., but
the exact relationship between C and X, Ltd., was
unknown at that time to member. Member wrote
to C stating that A and B would hold C responsible
for the damage suffered and subsequently received
correspondence from an insurance company headed
"Motor Claim No. 3174, X, Ltd., your clients
Miss A and Mrs. B." The negotiations for a settle
ment were unsuccessful and proceedings were
instituted by member on behalf of his clients against
X, Ltd. Defences were filed denying that the motor
car driven by C was the property of the defendants
as alleged or at all.
The plaintiff's solicitor then
ascertained that the relationship of C with X, Ltd.
was that of a hirer of the motor vehicle and accord
ingly by virtue of section 3 of the Road Traffic Act,
1933, X, Ltd. were not the owners thereof. The