197 / 338
and damage, (&) he was entitled to his costs after
date of lodgment relating exclusively to the issue of
negligence. This meant that he was not entitled to
the costs of instructions for brief or attendance on
counsel or the costs of witnesses which might relate
to the mixed issues of damages and negligence,
(f)
the defendant being entitled to the costs of the
action from date of lodgment against the plaintiff
would be entitled to costs of briefs and witnesses
relating
to
the mixed
issues of damages and
negligence but in this case the costs would be
apportioned and the Taxing Masters would certify
for such part of the costs as related to negligence
only to be set off against the plaintiff's costs. To
many it will appear that this is a rather artificial
distinction and that in equity at least the plaintiff
ought to be entitled to the apportioned costs of the
contested issue of negligence down to date of
judgment.
It is, however, covered by authority
and on the form of the order usually made in such
matters the plaintiff who fails to beat the lodgment
will apparently receive no costs in respect of any
items which do not relate exclusively to the contested
issue and the Taxing Masters have no power to
apportion.
Adjournment by District Justice, whether amounting
to refusal ofjurisdiction.
On the hearing of a prosecution for alleged
Customs offences it was submitted on behalf of the
defendant that the offence of knowingly dealing in
butter the importation of which is prohibited by law
is a criminal charge entitling the defendant to a trial
by judge and jury. The District Justice adjourned
these cases with thirty-three others pending the
result of an action by another defendant in the High
Court who contended that he was entitled to trial
by judge and jury. An application by the Attorney
General to the High Court for an order of mandamus
directing the District Justice to proceed with the
hearing was granted without any order as to costs.
On an appeal by the defendant to the Supreme Court
the order of mandamus was set aside.
In their
judgment the Court stated that it was proper for
the District Justice to take notice of the fact that
proceedings were pending which properly raised
the question of the validity of the law which he was
called upon to enforce. In the view which the Court
took the District Justice was entitled to adjourn
the summonses pending the determination of the
action of another defendant in the High Court.
(State (Deaton)
v.
District Justice Mangan, un-
reported. Judgment of Supreme Court—3rd March,
1960.)
Libel—
£105
damages—High Court Costs.
In an action for damages for libel brought by
Claude Hamilton and John Mills against Beaver-
brook Newspapers, Ltd., damages were claimed for
an alleged libel in the Irish edition of the
Daily
Express
under the heading " writ out for absent car
dealers". The jury awarded £105, damages with
costs and counsel for the defendants submitted that
only Circuit Court Costs
should be awarded.
Teevan J. held that the plaintiff's solicitor acted
reasonably in bringing the action in the High Court.
He said that he was not sure that the bringing of the
actions was not also a matter of public importance
having regard to the activities of certain categories
of the press in the nature of the news items which
they collected and published to an extremely wide
circle of readers. Having regard to the fact that the
actions were tried together he thought however,
that the defendants were entitled to some relief on
that account.
(Hamilton and another
v.
Beaverbrook News
papers, Ltd., unreported—i5th March, 1960.)
SOLICITORS' OPERATING EXPENSES
A special committee of the Council has been set
up
to investigate ways and means of reducing
solicitors' office expenses.
The committee have
wide
terms of reference and are authorised
to
examine and report upon any proposal or suggestion
which would enable solicitors
to operate their
offices more economically. The cost of running an
office has risen steeply in the past twenty years and
the matter is receiving serious attention by the
Council in the interests of the profession and its
clients.
In so far as the difficulty is caused by the
steady increase in the cost of living figure and
overhead expenses such as
rates and
taxes
the
solution is not under the control of the profession
itself.
It is, however, obvious that there are a
number of outmoded practices and procedures in
solicitors' offices and in their dealings with other
offices and Government and Court departments
which could be discontinued or improved with a
view to saving expense. The committee will consider
the matter under the following headings :
1. Improvements which could be effected by
changes in the internal organisation of solicitors'
offices and by cooperation among practitioners.
2. Improvements in the procedure of Government
and Court offices with a view to saving time and
effort by solicitors and their staffs.
The following are examples of the kind of
proposals which might be considered under head i :
The simplification of the system of drawing and