196 / 338
Secretary to remember that auctioneers down the
country are just as dependable as some of the
gentlemen sent from the city of Dublin. Would he
not consider appointing some of these to do this
work which has now fallen so far into arrears ?
Mr. O. J. Flanagan :
And I may add that the
auctioneer can be very helpful.
Mr. J. Brennan :
I am sure the Deputy is well
aware there are certain things which would not make
it advisable to have local or temporary valuers
appointed.
Mr. O'Donnell:
Bring
them
in
from
the
neighbouring counties.
Mr. J. Brennan :
It is a post better suited to
permanent civil servants only.
Mr. O'Donnell: Who know nothing whatever
about the valuation of property.
(Dail Debates—
zjth February, 1960.)
PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST
UNQUALIFIED PERSONS
In the Dublin District Court on March loth,
It was held that the defendants, who carry on
two summonses under section 64 of the Solicitors'
Act, 1954, which provides that a body corporate or
director, officer or servant thereof, shall not do any
act of such nature or in such manner as to imply
that the body corporate is qualified or recognised
by law as qualified to act as a solicitor.
It was held that the defendants, who carry on
the business of debt collecting, had written two
letters which contravened the section. One of these
letters dated 23rd September, 1959 was as follows :
Our clients Huet Bros. Ltd. confirm that the
above balance is still due for goods supplied
several years ago and unless immediate arrange
ments are made to pay we regret that legal action
must be taken.
The other letter, dated 3oth September, 1959
(which was written on behalf of different creditors),
was as follows :
We have been instructed by the above clients
to take proceedings against you for the balance
of £5 I2s. od., and £3 izs. 6d., due. We have
been instructed also to lodge the decree with the
County Sheriff's office to have your Ford YYI.zzy
seized. We would advise you to give the matter
your urgent attention.
The Justice convicted and imposed a fine of £50
on each summons with £15 155. costs and witnesses'
expenses.
The defendants have appealed against this con
viction.
DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST
Costs where plaintifffails to beat lodgment—Costs of the
issue and costs of the cause.
Plaintiff sustained injuries when travelling on
defendants' light railway near Athenry, and brought
an action for personal injuries. The jury brought
in a verdict of £300 against the defendants on the
grounds
(a)
that the plaintiff was a lawful passenger
on the train and
(b)
negligence and breach of
statutory duty on the part of the defendants from
which he sustained injuries.
As the defendants
had lodged £305 in Court, judgment was given for
them from the date of lodgment, and the plaintiff
was to have his costs up to the date of lodgment,
together with all his costs on the issue of negligence.
This
judgment was
interpreted by
the Taxing
Master to mean that the plaintiff should be allowed
his costs up to the date of lodgment, and that the
defendants should be allowed their costs after the
date of lodgment, less the costs which were
ex
clusively
referable to the issue of negligence, which
were allowed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, objecting
to this interpretation, asked for a review of the
taxation. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that
the Taxing Master should have taxed the defendants'
costs, as if the action were one in which liability was
admitted, and the only issue was damages; and
should have first taxed the plaintiff's costs, as if
he had wholly succeeded in the action, and then
taxed them, as if it was an action in which the only
issue was damages, and should have allowed him
the difference. In delivering judgment on i8th May,
1953, Davitt P. adopted the dictum of Baron
Fitzgerald in Morgan
v.
Gray—17 Irish Jurist
(1865), 335—as follows, at page 340:—"I think
it may be treated as the settled practice both before
and since the Common Law Procedure Act that the
party who is entitled to the costs of the cause is also
entitled to the costs of the issues found for him,
though such costs were also applicable to the issues
found against him:—while
the other party
is
entitled only to the costs applicable exclusively to
the issues on which he has succeeded " :—Accord
ingly, the President refused to reverse the Taxing
Master's interpretation of the order.
(Behan
v.
Bord na Mona—Unreported Judgment
of the President of the High Court, i8th May, 1953.)
This case illustrates the difference between costs
of an issue and costs of the cause. The plaintiff was
awarded all his costs down to date of lodgment and
thereafter the defendant was entitled to the costs of
the action while the plaintiff was entitled to the costs
of the issue of negligence only which was contested.
The result was that
(a)
the plaintiff received his costs
down to date of lodgment on the issues of negligence
82