325 / 364
counts and documents kept in relation to your
practice as solicitor(s) for the accounting period
beginning on the ............ day of ......... 19......
and ending on the ......... day of ......... 19......
and that I am/we are satisfied, subject to the
matters set out on the back hereof from such
examination and from the information and ex
planations given to me/us that during the said
accounting period you/your firm have complied
with the provisions of the Solicitors' Accounts
Regulations now in operation, and further that
the sum or the total of the sums at credit of the
designated client account or accounts and desig
nated trust bank account or accounts as defined
in the said regulations kept by you/your firm, was
not less than the total of the sums required to be
so kept in conformity with the provisions of the
said regulations.
(a) State full name of the solicitor or firm of
Signature
.............................................
Professional Qualification ...........................
Address
................................................
Notes
(a) State full name of the solicitor or firm of
solicitors in respect of whom the certificate is
issued.
(b) When the solicitor has two or more places
of business he may at his option lodge a separate
certificate for each office or one certificate
to
cover all. All addresses should be stated in the
certificate, if onlv one certificate is issued.
COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS
PROHIBITED FROM ACTING WHERE
INTERESTED
An article under the above heading appeared
in the
Gazette
(Vol. 60, No. 5, Oct.-Nov. 1966, at
p. 59) which has given rise to a considerable
number of queries with the Society.
An affidavit is insufficient if sworn before the
solicitor acting for the party on whose behalf the
affidavit is to be used, or before any agent, corres
pondent, clerk or partner of such solicitor. Under
the Commissioners of Oaths Act, 1889, S.
1
(3),
a Commissioner shall not administer oaths in any
proceedings in which he is acting as solicitor or
solicitor's clerk to any of the patries. Proceeding
in
this context
is not confined
to contentious
business see in re Bagley, (1911) 1 K.B. 317 (see
Cordery on Solicitors fifth edition, page 132).
A view already expressed
in
the
Gazette
is
further endorsed by Stringer on Oaths and Affir
mations (second edition tit pages 35 and 140).
In Madden on Registration of Deeds (second
edition at pages 138-139) liabilities of attorneys
for defects in affidavits of ownership are clearly
set out. Furthermore the Rules of the Superior
Courts (S.I. NO. 72 of 1962) contain provisions
similar to those already set out. In Order 40, Rules
17 and 18. Order 40. Rule 17, states as follows:
"No affidavit shall be sufficient if sworn before
the solicitor acting for the party on whose be
half the affidavit is to be used, or before any
agent or a correspondent of such solicitor or
before the party himself."
Rule 18 states as follows :
"Any affidavit which would be insufficient if
sworn before the solicitor himself shall be in
sufficient if sworn before his clerk or partner."
CASES OF THE MONTH
Omission from Statement of Claim — Solicitor's
Negligence
The plaintiff was involved in a motor accident
and sustained multiple serious injuries for which
she was
treated by the first-named defendant,
who is a surgeon, and in respect of which she
retained
the
second-named defendant
as
her
solicitor to prosecute a claim for damages for
negligence in the High Court on her behalf. One
of the injuries sustained by her was a fracture of
the left calvicle. This injury was omitted by the
first-named defendant from his medical reports
furnished for the purpose of the proceedings, and,
although the second-named defendant was aware
of the injury, it was not specifically brought to
the attention of counsel for the plaintiff until the
morning of
the hearing. The defendants had
lodged in Court with their defence the sum of
£1,255 and offered £1,500 in settlement which
offer was refused. The case went to hearing on
the injuries as pleaded and the jury awarded the
plaintiff £1,000 for general damages and £235
for special damages making in all the sum of
£1,235. The usual consequential order as to costs
was made and the plaintiff became liable to pay a
total sum of £597 for costs.
The plaintiff thereupon brought proceedings
against both defendants, claiming damages
in
negligence and breach of contract alleging that if
the fractured clavicle and the consequent pain
and suffering had been pleaded and considered
by the jury she would have been awarded a sum
in excess of that lodged in Court and also claim
ing as damages the costs for which she had been
liable.
Held by Henchy J. 1. That each defendant was
in breach of his contract with the plaintiff; that
the plaintiff suffered damage thereby, and that
this damage was not too remote;
110