The Gazette 1949-1952

account o f any business as it is most important to them to avoid, if possible, the establishment o f a loss on the working o f the firm for the first year. In the particular case referred to herein the Auditors o f the firm resisted the ascertainment of work in progress because of the difficulties involved and put forward the argument to the Revenue Authorities that it should be sufficient to include the costs furnished together with the fees earned in cases finally completed but not furnished up to the end of the first year, and this position, it is under­ stood, is usually accepted, at any rate in the case of solicitors’ businesses, by the Revenue Authorities. Whether there is a new business in the case o f a solicitor who purchases the interest in a solicitor’s business previously carried on by a deceased or retired solicitor would be a question of fact and would depend upon the circumstances, but in most cases of this nature the Revenue Authorities will agree to treat the business, especially in the case o f a business carried on by a deceased solicitor and purchased by a solicitor after his death, as a new business for Income Tax purposes even if the name o f the firm is unchanged. EXAMINATION RESULTS A t examinations held on the 2nd and 3rd days of February, 1951, under the Legal Practitioners (Qualification) Act, 1929, the following passed the examinations :— First Examination in Irish Patrick Joseph Carolan, Fintan Clancy, Peter J. C. Coyle, Thomas Joseph Crowley, Matthew P. Drum, Edward Joseph Duffy, John F. Garavan, Iseult Clare Kennedy, Richard D. Kennedy, Kenneth Kenny, Michael Brendan Lynch, Sean F. MacGiollarnath, Joseph Bernard McCarthy, Kevin P. St. G. McClenaghan, James F. J. Maguire, Albeit Louis O ’Dea, Finian J. O’Driscoll, Patrick R. O’Gorman, Thomas P. Owens, Noel Thomas Smith, Hallam J. C. Studdert, James Noel Tanham. Twenty-nine candidates entered; twenty-two passed ; six failed ; one did not attend. Second Examination in Irish Donal G. Binchy, Daniel C. Brilley, James M. Cawley, Arthur Dey, Eamonn M. Greene, Dermot F. Jones, Myles C. Murphy, Patrick D. O’Connor, Patrick H. O’Doherty, Patrick J. O ’Driscoll (Jnr.). Sixteen candidates entered; ten passed: six failed. The remaining candidates are postponed.

FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT COSTS A seaman lost his life as a result o f a collision at sea between the Queen Mary and R.M.S. Curacao for which the Queen Mary was held partly to blame. The administrator of his estate obtained judgment for damages and costs in respect of his death in an action brought against the defendants under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934. Apart from the damages recovered in this action the estate o f the deceased was so small that no Grant of Administration would have been required, and the administrator obtained the grant solely to enable him to bring the action. As a result of the damages recovered, the estate o f the deceased had increased in value to such an extent that it was necessary for the administrator to file a corrective affidavit, and to incur additional expenses in connection with the administration. The adminis­ trator duly included these additional administration expenses in his bill o f costs in the ac:ion. The Registrar, while allowing the expenses incurred in obtaining the grant, disallowed the additional administration expenses incurred after judgment. On appeal to the Probate Court Willner, J., held that, as the additional administration expenses incidental to the increase in value o f the estate were incurred after the plaintiff had recovered judgment, and were in no way necessary to enable him to conduct the litigation, they could not be allowed on taxation under Rule 27, Order 65, of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The following dictum of Malins, V. C., in Smith v. Buffer, L.R . 19, Eq. 473, was approved:—“ The costs chargeable under a taxation as between party and party are all that are necessary to enable the adverse party to conduct the litigation, and no more .”—(Thomas v. Cunard-White Star L,td.) GARNISHEE PRACTICE NOTE A somewhat unusual garnishee order was sought in the High Court recently. A creditor obtained a judgment against a debtor for a sum which, together with costs, amounted to just over £400. The debtor, in turn, was the successful plaintiff in an action for damages against a third party who had paid into court with his defence the sum o f £500. By an order made in this action it was directed that this sum be paid out to the solicitor for the plaintiff (that is, the original judgment debtor). The judg­ ment creditor thereupon applied for and obtained a garnishee order nisi directed to the debtor’s solicitor attaching so much o f the money in Court as was necessary to satisfy his judgment. At the same time he obtained a stop order directed to the Accountant General in respect o f the funds in Court. The