The Gazette 1949-1952

An appeal is made to all custodians o f documents, rentals and ledgers, o f a date prior to 1870, to let the Keeper o f Manuscripts, National Library, know before any such be scrapped, and to in form him o f anything of interest of this nature. The National Library has already a large collection of family archives and is anxious to acquire more, whether by gift or purchase, or on long loan. Some solicitors have already helped greatly in this way. It is hoped that further progress will be made in this direction as the result o f this notice. FORGED CODICIL A D ublin solicitor, who had drawn a will for an old-standing client, received by post shortly after the client’s death in August, 1950, a document which purported to be a codicil to the will. The document was written in a rather illiterate fashion, and the suspicions o f the solicitor were aroused as to its genuineness. He sent the papers to the police, who, after making inquiries, stated that they were certain that the so-called codicil was written by an elderly person who was not responsible for her actions. On a previous occasion the papers in a similar matter had been submitted to the Attorney- General, who had directed that on the facts sub­ mitted to him, a prosecution should not be instituted. It seems that the person in question frequently utters documents of this nature, and a local firm of solicitors has received numerous inquiries from Ireland and England on the subject. The Probate Officer is aware of the identity o f the person in question and has received a number o f similar documents. The utterer o f these forgeries is apparently prompted to indulge in this peculiar hobby by reading the Preliminary Notice to Creditor? in the newspapers. A solicitor who receives a testamentary document o f a suspicious nature would be well advised to show it in the first instance to the Probate Officer to ascertain whether it is the work o f the person in question. CONTEMPT OF COURT To attempt to deceive the court by disguising the true nature of the claim by the indorsement on a specially indorsed writ is a contempt o f court. A solicitor was instructed by a client to bring an action against bookmakers for money alleged to be owed by them to the clients on bets. The client, Weisz, insisted that the action be brought, although he knew it was not maintainable under the Gaming Acts, in .the hope that the threat o f publicity would induce the bookmakers to pay, or, if they did not, for the purpose o f “ showing them up.”

Accordingly, a specially indorsed writ was issued against the bookmakers by which the money was claimed to be due on an account stated. No account had been stated, as the solicitor well knew. Weisz did not know o f the terms o f the indorsement. The solicitor throughout had acted on the advice o f counsel. H eld by the Divisional Court (Lord Goddard, C.J. ; Hilbery and Devlin, J.J.) that the solicitor had committed a contempt o f Court because the indorsement on the writ was fictitious, and was designed to conceal from the Court the true nature of the claim ; but that Weisz had not committed a contempt, for to bring an action prohibited by the Gaming Act, 1945, although an abuse o f the process o f the Court, was not of itself a contempt, even though it were brought to put pressure on the bookmakers, or to “ show them up ” as the client was not responsible for the terms o f the indorsement on the writ. Per Lord Goddard, C .J .—The very fact that on many previous occasions resort has been had to this particular form o f indorsement in cases which are brought simply for the recovery o f money won at betting or gaming is what gives importance to this motion for attachment for contempt. It is time that this practice should be stopped, and in no uncertainmanner. It is in our opinion beyond question that to disguise a cause o f action so as to conceal its true nature when in truth it is one prohibited by Statute is a contempt. It is necessary to emphasise that the contempt in this case lies not in bringing an action forbidden by the Gaming Acts, but in bring­ ing it as a feigned issue so as to conceal its true nature from the Court. (Rex v. Weisz—ex parte Hector McDonald, Ltd. 1951 2 K .B . 6 11.) A solicitor who was one o f the executors o f a mortgagee refused, on the mortgagor’s giving notice to redeem, to part with the title deeds to the property, claiming a lien for moneys which he himself had personally advanced. His claim to the lien was dismissed by the Court o f Appeal in proceedings in a redemption action (See Gazette, February, 1951, p. 51). During the action, the necessity for which was the sole cause o f delay in payment o f the mortgage moneys, the solicitor took a transfer o f the mortgage from the other executors, and became sole mortgagee. H eld by Danckwerts, J. that, in spite o f the delay in redemption which was caused by the unsustainable claim advanced by the mortgagee- 42 SOLICITOR-MORTGAGEE INTEREST