244 / 364
Supreme Court of Western Australia date Jan
uary 9, 1963, and held that in certain circum
stances the owner of a tree which had been
set on fire by lightning was liable for the damage
caused by the consequential spread of fire.
It was considered that the case was not one
where a person had brought a source of danger
on his land, nor one where an occupier had so used
his property as to cause a danger to his neighbour.
It was one where an occupier faced with a hazard
accidentally arising on his land, failed to act
with reasonable prudence so as to remove the
hazard. The issue was therefore whether in such
a case the occupier was guilty of legal negligence,
which involved the issue whether he was under a
duty of care, and if so, what was the scope of that
duty with regard to his neighbours, as to hazards
arising on his land.
(Allan William Goldman v. Rupert William
Edeson Hargrave and Another,
Times,
14/6/66).
UNQUALIFIED PERSONS ACTING
The Leiscester Mercury for May 6th, 1965,
reports a case at Market County Court heard
before His Honour Judge D. H. Robson on
May 5th. British Colonial Furnisher, Ltd., of
Nottingham Street, sued for a debt owing to the
company and were represented by Mr. Frederick
Overtoil, an accountant. The learned Judge told
Mr. Overton that an official company should be
represented by a solicitor and, receiving no reply,
said he would overlook it on this occasion, adding
that there were three local solicitors, each able
to represent the company, and yet an accountant
was sent all the way from Nottingham to Market.
Judgment was given for the company, payable
at ten shillings a month, and the Judge re
marked: "It will take a month or two to pay
your fare down here no doubt it will and rightly
so." We should have thought this rule was well
understood and we see no reason why the rule
should be broken.
On May 26th, 1965 the
Surrey Comet
reported
that
Robert E. Burns, of Esker, appeared at Mar-
borough Street, Magistrates Court on May 24th,
1965 in answer to a summons issued at the in
stance of the Law Society for preparing, as un
qualified person, the assignment of a flat at Wey-
bridge. The defendant was a senior clerk with
a co-operative society, and the assignee of the
flat had paid him sums of £81-18-0 and
£128-19-0, the bill including an item of five
guineas for "assignment of lease." Evidence was
given by the assignor's solicitor who described a
telephone conversation and a discussion with the
defendant who said he had included the five
guineas because he thought he would have to pay
that fee to the assignor's solicitor, but had not
been asked for payment. He pleaded not guilty
and denied attempting to act as a solicitor, but
the Magistrate, Mr. Edward Robey, held that the
case was so plain that it was beyond any argu
ment at all and fined him £10-0-0 with ten
guineas costs, and giving two months to pay,
with an alternative of two months in prison.
BOOK REVIEW
DICKERSON (R.W.V.) —
Accountants and the Law of
Negligence.
Toronto, Canadian Institute of Char
tered Accountants, 1966. (Royal 8vo, pp. XV, 648).
Price not stated.
Mr. R. W. Dickerson, of the Faculty of Law in the
University of British Columbia at Vancouver, has writ
University of British Columbia at Vancouver, has written
an interesting, comprehansive and instructive boom on
the intricate legal problems which accountants meet on
such problems as: duty of care, standard of care,
measure of damages, contributory negligence, duty to
third parties, etc. The book is preceeded by a table
of cases, which is unfortunately incomplete, as it only
refers to the pages in the tedt, and does not give the
customary references; however, generally speaking, the
cases are dealt with very fully in the text, and the
most important extracts from the leading judgments
have been inserted therein. It is evident that the law
of negligence as applied to accountants has evolved
largely out of cases in which accountants have been
engaged as auditors, and obviously the auditor's duty
to his client must be found in the terms of the contract,
which should be preferably in writing. However, under
such statutes as the Companies Acts 1963, the duties
of auditors are clearly set out, and based on the statute.
As Lord Denning has so clearly stated, in the Fomento
Case (1958) "An auditor is not to be confined to the
mechanics of checking vouchers and making arithmetical
computations. His vital task is to see that errors are
not made, be they errors of computation, or errors of
omission, or downright untruths." The auditor must
therefore come to his task with an inquiring mind!
The legal circumstances in which an auditor will have
to disclaim responsibility for certain figures in the
financial statements is fully explored.
The text relating to the intricate subject covers
100 pages, while there are no less than 500 pages of
cases reproduced in Appendix A while an additional
35 pages covers the official statements and opinions of
counsel in Appendix B. The cases covered are tested
alphabetically, and are thus easily traceable; they
cover decisions from South Africa, England, India,
Canada, and Australia. The only Irish cases listed
are: (1)
Cork Mutual Benefit Society v. Atkins'
Churnside & Co.
(1911) in which Wright J. held that
the defendant auditors had acted with all reasonable
care and skill; (2)
Irish Woollen Co. v. Tyson
(1900)
in which the Irish Court of Appeal held that the
auditor had been negligent in not detecting frauds,
and (3)
Ross & Co. v. Wright, Fitzsimons and Mayes
(1896) in which Lord Justice Fitzgibbon held that
the auditors were negligent in failing to detect errors
and falsifications, and had to pay £50 damages. The
26