86 / 364
legislation to exempt beneficiaries of charities of this
nature from the means test. I know they will
continue to do this. This would particularly apply
where the donees of our annuities have saved over
the years and their moderate means might deprive
them of getting a State pension if we stepped in to
try and help them. This is a grave injustice and we
should try to stop it. Any members who have any
influence should try to assist the Association in
this important matter.
Gentlemen, may I wish the Association the success
it so assuredly deserves in this and all its future years.
SOLICITORS AND AUCTIONEERS
The following item of interest appeared in
Easiness and Finance
(Vol. i, No. 18, January 22nd,
1965, p. 7) under the heading " Legislation coming
to curb auctioneers " :
" Among practices which
members of the Auctioneers Association feel that
the disciplinary council should take stronger action
on is the growing practice that auctioneers are
splitting commission with solicitors, particularly
young solicitors who are struggling to become
established. . . . There is contemplated legislation
whereby money held for clients of auctioneers should
be obligatorily lodged in a different account to that
of the agency itself."
UNESCO
A vacancy exists for a legal office in the Office of
the Director-General in the Bureau of Legal Affairs.
Details of the duties and responsibilities, qualifica
tions and experience required, and salary and allow
ances can be obtained from the Bureau of Personnel,
Unesco, Place de Fontenoy, Paris ye, France.
Closing date for receipt of applications is iyth
April, 1965.
CASES
OF THE MONTH
Knock for knock agreement
The first plaintiff B and his son brought an action
in the County Court against the driver and owner of a
car which had been in collision with B's car when
driven by his son. The cost of making good the
damage to B's car was £230
45.
6d. and this sum
was claimed in the action. The driver of B's car
was found to be two-thirds to blame so that B
recovered only £76
145.
lod. There was an excess
of £10 on B's third party policy and there was
a knock for knock agreement between B's insurers
and the defendant's insurers. B had claimed and
been paid by his insurers the sum of £230
45.
6d.
less the £10 excess. The County Court Judge
allowed costs on the scale appropriate to an award
of .£10 and B appealed claiming costs on the scale
appropriate to an award of £76
145.
lod. The action
was really brought to save B's no-claim bonus and
the County Court Judge apparently took this
matter into account. The Court of Appeal by a
majority held that the arrangements between B and
his insurers and the knock for knock agreement were
irrelevant and that B was entitled to sue for the
amount of the damage and to recover costs on the
scale appropriate to the actual award. (Bourne and
Anor.
v.
Stanbridge and Anor., 1965, i All. E.R.
241.)
Onus ofproof in dangerous driving charge
In an unreported case stated from a District
Justice who had dismissed a summons for dangerous
driving, Davitt P. on February ist, 1963, held that
the onus of proof resting on the complainant Garda
had been properly discharged and that the defendant,
who had subsequently admitted the offence, should
have been convicted. The evidence had been that
on 2nd March, 1962, a car hit a stationary parked
car, damaging it, and did not stop. Judge Deale's
decision in Devane
v.
Murphy (1958), Ir. Jur.
Repts. 73, dismissing a dangerous driving charge
on the ground that the evidence in that case did not
establish dangerous driving, but could have equally
been the result of an effort on the part of the defend
ant to avoid a sudden crisis, was not followed.
Practice Note of the Queen's Bench Division (1962)
i All. E.R. 448, followed.:—
Per Lord Parker C.J. in Practice Note—A sub
mission that there is no case to answer may properly
be made and upheld—
(a)
when there has been no
evidence to prove an essential element in the alleged
offence,
(b)
when the evidence adduced by the
prosecution has been so discredited as a result of
cross-examination or is so manifestly unreliable,
that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict on it.
Apart from these two situations, a tribunal should
not in general be called on to reach a decision as to
conviction or acquittal until the whole evidence
which either side wishes to tender has been placed
before it. If, however, a submission is made that
there is no case to answer, if a reasonable tribunal is
satisfied at that stage that it might convict on the
evidence so far laid before it, there is a case to
answer.
(Griffin
v.
O'Reilly (unreported)—judgment of
Davitt P., ist February, 1963.)
Action for loss of services—" Stare Decisis" in Supreme
Court
A sergeant in the Irish Air Corps was seriously
injured by a motor car driven by a servant of the
80