131 / 364
was not true the solicitor ought to be cleared of such
a charge. The case does not appear to have been
officially reported and, as published in
The Times,
the
judge's remarks were divorced from their context.
There may have been circumstances connected with
this case not disclosed with the report which were
the real basis of the judge's condemnation of the
conduct with which he was dealing. If such circum
stances were not present many will feel that the pro
hibition laid down by the judge was too wide. Most
solicitors would be surprised to learn of any universal
rule whereby merely
interviewing any witness,
whether already sub poenaed or not by another party
to the proceedings, is regarded as a breach of pro
priety. Cases will occur in which common sense will
suggest that it would be improper to seek to inter
view a particular witness. There seems, however,
to be no valid reason why a solicitor, preparing
instructions for counsel for the defence in a criminal
prosecution should be obliged to rely upon deposi
tions or proofs of evidence taken down by the police
or someone else if he has reason to believe that they
may be incomplete or may omit to deal with matters
within the knowledge of a witness which he foresees
will be important for his client's defence. The popular
term 'witness for the prosecution,' though sanctioned
by usage, is really a misnomer. Provided that he
scrupulously avoids anything which would constitute
an abuse of his privilege the general view of the
profession has been that a solicitor is entitled to
interview any witness whose evidence may be
necessary for the presentation of the facts of his
client's case to the court."
(THE GAZETTE, November 1943, page 25.)
"A member has drawn attention to a judicial pro
nouncement which should be noted in connection
with the paragraph under the above heading in the
November GAZETTE.
In Attorney General
v,
Fitz
gerald (68 I. L. T. R. 249) there was an appeal by
Fitzgerald, the accused, against an order of the
Circuit Judge refusing bail and remanding him in
custody. The accused had been tried on charges on
which the jury had disagreed and fresh charges were
pending against him. One of the grounds on which
the State opposed the granting of bail was the alle
gation that the accused had interfered with State
witnesses. Per Hanna, J. 'The next ground was that
of interfering with State witnesses. I am not quite
clear what "interference" means as suggested by the
affidavit. Both accused and his solicitor, if they so
desire, may interview witnesses for the State, so long
as they do not suborn them to perjury. The mere
fact of talking to or having a drink with a State
witness is not of itself sufficient to disentitle the
applicant to bail.' This dictum of Mr. Justice Hanna
should serve to dispel any doubts, if they ever
existed in this country, as to solicitors' rights in
such cases."
(THE GAZETTE, February 1944, page 44.)
SOLICITORS' GOLFING SOCIETY
SUMMER MEETING AT HEADFORT G.C.
26™ JUNE, 1965
WINNERS
President's Pri^e:
E. J. Dillon (5) (Dublin) 33 pts. ;
D. P. Shaw (12) (Mullingar) 32 pts.
R}>aft Cup :
J. McGowan (16) (Balbriggan) 32 pts.
(2nd 9); S. M. Mahon (18) (Tullamore) 32 pts.
More than
30
miles:
W. A. Tormey (12) (Athlone)
3 2 pts.
isf Nine :
R. Taylor (24) (Drogheda) 17 pts.
ind Nine :
P. A. Noonan (13) (Athboy) 18 pts. (on
last 6).
Best card by Lot:
T. D. McLoughlin (Dublin) 26 pts.
COMMISSIONERS OF CHARITABLE
DONATIONS & BEQUESTS
BOARD MEETINGS
MICHAELMAS TERM, 1965
Tuesday
5th October,
1965
3ist August, 1965.
19th
2nd November, 1965
i6th
,,
1965
3oth
„
1965
14th December, 1965
J. S. MARTIN,
Secretary.
LAND REGISTRY
HIGH COURT APPLICATIONS
Where the land is subject to the provisions of
Section 45 of the Land Act, 1965, the affidavit of
the applicant for an Order under Section 5 2 of the
Registration of Title Act, 1891, should contain an
averment (if it be the case) that he is a qualified