124 / 364
plaintiff went into possession and for some time
carried on the business of a confectionery and
tobacco retailer. The head landlord, in exercise of his
powers under the head lease, prohibited the sale of
tobacco in the shop as a result of which the plaintiff
sustained a considerable loss of business.
In an action by the plaintiff against the defendants
for damages for breach of an implied, alternatively
an express, warranty that the premises could lawfully
be used for the sale of tobacco, the plaintiff relied
for the express warranty on
inter alia
die failure
of the defendants' then solicitors to reply to the
letter of the plaintiff's then solicitors in relation to
permitted user. Held
inter alia
that the defendants
had not given any express warranty since the failure
of the solicitors to reply to an assertion made in the
course of negotiation for a sub-lease could not
constitute a warranty and that the submission of a
draft sub-lease was no more than an offer to negotiate
a sublease on the terms of the draft; accordingly,
there being no express or implied warranty, the
plaintiff's claim failed.
Per Russell L.J. The solicitors then acting for the
plaintiff were negligent in not calling for and
inspecting the head lease and would be liable to the
plaintiff for the same measure of damages as he would
have obtained had he established a warranty by the
defendants.
Hillv. Harris and Another (1965) 2 W.L.R. p. 1331.
Occupation
The defendant brewers owned a public house;
they did not let the premises, but traded directly
through a manager. The manager lived in the
premises rent free, and as a privilege was allowed to
take paying guests in the upper part, to which the
public did not have access. One such guest fell and
was killed on the "private" part of the premises. On
his widow's claim for damages, held that the
manager, and not the defendant, was the occupier
of the "private" part of the premises for the purposes
of the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1957.
(Wheat v. E. Lacon & Co. (1965) 109 S.J. 334
4C.L. 524).
Receipt for counsel's fees
Practice—Costs—Party and party costs—Taxation
—Counsel's
fees—Vouching—Whether
counsel's
fees should be shown to have been paid before
taxation—Whether to be shown to be paid on dates
in bill of costs—Practice of Office of Taxing Master—
Personal responsibility of Taxing Master—Court
Officers Act, 1926 (No. 27 of 1926) s. 3, 6, 7, 58—
Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 (No. 39
of 1961), s. 55, sub-s. i, Eighth Schedule paragraphs
2 and 8.
1. On the taxa tion of a party and party bill of costs
it is not necessary to show that counsel's fees
were paid on the dates shown in the bill provided
the payment of such fees is properly vouched.
2. Where counsel have given a receipt over their
signature acknowledging payment of a brief or other
fee and have signed vouchers the taxing master
should accept such receipts and allow the fees or
such part thereof as he thinks proper.
The State v. Judge Durcan (I.L.T.R. Vol. XCIX
p.ioy).
Form of Certificate for Stamp Duty Purposes
The appellant company was duly incorporated on
the 15th September, 1943, as a limited liability
company, under its original name of "The Dublin
Marine Transport Company Limited".
By resolution passed in 1958,
the name was
changed to "New Forest Estate Company Limited".
In November, 1954, certain property was conveyed
by V. to D.M.T.C. In March, 1960, the Revenue
Commissioners were
required
to express
their
opinion as to the duty, if any, chargeable on the
executed instrument. The Revenue Commissioners
were of the opinion that the certificate contained in
the said instrument, was not in compliance with the
Finance (No. 2) Act, 1947 and that, accordingly,
ad valorem duty was payable. In March, 1962, the
Company required the Commissioners to state and
sign a case for the opinion of the High Court.
By the Conveyance which was dated the ist day of
November, 1954, the vendor as beneficial owner
thereby granted and conveyed unto the appellant
company certain premises and lands in fee simple.
The conveyance contained the following certificate:
"It is hereby certified that the Purchasers are a Body
corporate incorporated in the state on or before the
15th day of October, One thousand nine hundred
and forty-seven".
Held by Kenny J., that the certificate did not meet
the requirements of the Act; because it failed to
certify
the purchaser-company
as
the person
becoming entitled to the entire beneficial interest in
this property conveyed, that the Revenue were under
no duty to require further information or to accept
an amended certificate, and that the 25% ad valorem
stamp duty was payable.
(New Forest Estate Company v. The Revenue
Commissioners I.L.T.R. Vol. (XCIC) p. 78)
Retiring partner as consultant. Tax liability.
The tax payer, a solicitor, retired from his partner
ship with M from 29th February, 1956, on the terms
of an agreement of 25th March, 1957. Clause 2 of
. that agreement provided: "In consideration of the
agreement on the part of M hereinafter contained
20