83 / 264
GAZETTE
APRIL 1977
J.'s decision will be allowed. So held
by
O'Higgins CJ., and Parke J.
Kenny J.
having considered in
detail the cases of (1)
Miller v. South
of Scotland Electricity Board-
1958
Sessions Cases, (2)
Hughes
v.
Lord
Advocate
- (1963) A.C., and (3)
The Wagon Mound
(No. 2), -
(1967) A.C., also came to the
conclusion that the Asphalt Co. was
liable in negligence and in nuisance,
and that the appeal should be
allowed.
Wade v. Connolly and South of
Ireland Asphalt Co. —
Supreme
Court (O'Higgins C.J., Kenny J. and
Parke J.) — unreported — 21 January
1977.
PERSONAL PROPERTY
- CHATTELS
The donee who enters into beneficial
occupation of lands in 1971 is entitled
to receive the cattle, stock and farm
implements donated in 1962, still
extant, but never delivered. Subject to
enquiry the donee is also entitled to
'the chattels in the rooms occupied by
himself and his family in the house
since 1971.
The donor was a retired District
Justice who resided in his ancestral
home, including a farm of 346 acres,
near Ballyneen, Co. Cork. In 1962
he was a widower with three children,
the eldest son, Cornelius Conner, the
plaintiff in this action (hereinafter
called "the donee"), and two
daughters. As the donor was anxious
that the family property should
descend to the male line, he executed
a deed of settlement in December
1962, whereby his house and lands,
save the property specified later, were
conveyed to trustees to be settled on
the donee for life, with remainder to
the first and other sons of the donee
successively in tail male, with an
ultimate remainder to the donee in fee
simple. The donor's daughter, Ann
Conner, received from this settlement
"The Farm House", and one half of
"The Coach House". O'Keeffe P.
had rightly held that this was an
effective settlement giving the donee a
beneficial estate for life in most of the
property. It is, however, contended
that O'Keeffe P. had misdirected
himself in holding that the chattels
(cattle, farm machinery, implements,
furniture, family heirlooms and silver)
on the lands settled were not legally
transferred by the donor to the donee
by a separate gift.
When the settlement was being
effected in 1962, the donor consulted
6
his solicitor orally as to how the chat-
tels could legally be settled upon the
donee, and the solicitor advised that
this should be done by delivery, with
a subsequent letter confirming it But
the donor in fact made no delivery
then, either actual or constructive. In
1962, the donee was living in Dublin,
and continued to reside in Dublin,
until 15 November 1971, when he
entered into residential occupation of
the lands as tenant for life. It followed
that in the absence of delivery in
1962 the gift of the chattels was
legally inoperative. It is also
contended that when the donee took
possession of the lands in 1971 he
also went into possession of the
chattels. However, the donor
continued to reside in the same
premises after 1971 until he died in
October 1972, at the age of 85.
When the donee entered into
beneficial occupation and possession
of the lands in 1971 under the
settlement, it must be assumed that,
as the person now solely working the
lands, he was put in possession of the
livestock and farm implements, and
that he, his wife and 13 year old son,
were given by the donor sole
possession of certain rooms in the
house, which would include furniture
and chattels. As tenant for life, the
donee went into beneficial occupation
in 1971, and the donor withdrew
from the running of the farm. The
livestock, farm machinery and
implements, insofar as they were
already on the lands in 1962, passed
into the possession of the donee.
There is no doubt that the donor, by
allowing the donee, his wife, and son,
to occupy certain rooms in the house,
intended to part with the chattels in
those rooms to the donee. The
remainder of the chattels, insofar as
they subsisted at the date of the death
of the donor, had passed under his
will to his two daughters in equal
shares. A declaration will be made
accordingly, but it will be necessary
to hold an inquiry to determine which
chattels have passed to the donee.
The appeal will be allowed to that
extent.
Conner v. Quinlan and others —
Supreme Court (Henchy J., Kenny J.
and Parke J.) per Henchy J. and
Kenny J. — unreported — 23
February 1977.
EDUCATION - BREACH OF
CONTRACT - CONSPIRACY
Plaintiff awarded £367 damages
against school Manager for not
appointing him a Principal of a
National School — Four other
defendants, officials of Cork Branch
of I.N.T.O., guilty of breach of
contract and conspiracy —Plaintiff
awarded £1,562 against them for
having to transfer to Co. Wicklow —
Full contribution to be paid by these
four defendants to School Manager
in respect of £367 damages.
Plaintiff claims damages against
Canon Ahern for breach of contract
to appoint him Principal of Ovens
National School, Co. Cork, and
against the remaining defendants,
who are respectively Chairman, Vice-
Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary
of the Cork City Branch of the Irish
National Teachers Organisation
(I.N.T.O.).
The plaintiff, a native of Cork,
qualified as a primary teacher in
1954, and, save for two years, has
since taught in various schools in
Ireland. In 1963, he was appointed to
Schull National School, Co. Cork,
and eventually became Principal of a
two teacher boys school. In 1972, he
obtained an appointment as Assistant
at a larger school at New Inn, Lower
Glanmire, on the outskirts of Cork
City. Shortly afterwards, he was
offered and accepted the post of Vice-
Principal, although the local officials
in the I.N.T.O. told him that more
junior applicants who had been
longer in New Inn were entitled to be
considered first. The plaintiff refused
to attend an arbitration by the
I.N.T.O. as to whether his appoint-
ment as Vice-Principal was valid, and
eventually resigned from the I.N.T.O.
The defendant members of the Cork
City Branch of the I.N.T.O. then
made repeated representations to the
Bishop of Cork to have the plaintiff
removed from the position of Vice-
Principal, but were unsuccessful.
In April 1974, Canon Ahern
advertised in the newspapers the post
of principal of Ovens National
School. The plaintiff sent particulars
of his qualifications and experience
to Canon Ahern. Eventually Canon
Ahern drew up a list of 8 names,
which included those of the plaintiff
and Denis Lynch. The effective Rules
governing appointments are the
Rules for National Schools of the
Department of Education of 22
January 1965, and more particularly
Rule 15. This is supplemented by a
circular of the Department dated
January 1969, which relates
specifically to the details of
appointing a Principal, where the
staff exceeded three persons. Under