The Gazette 1975

tried to slate that the lady in question was a neigh- bour, who merely looked after the children, but that no misconduct luui taken place; this lady declined to give evidence. The Judgc in those circumstanccs was satisfied that the boys, who were of an impressionable age, should be removed from the father's custodv. Butler v. Butler established that the parent who loses the custody still retains rights of guardianship. The Supreme Court has interviewed the two boys, trying to canvass their views. In the prevailing circumstances, as the boys should have constant access to both parents who do not live far away from one another, they should be in the custody of their mother during the shool week, but the father should have access to them at weekends to bring them to sports. Special arrangements will be made for vacations. These boys may not be removed out of the jurisdiction of the Court by either parent without leave. (Waters v. Waters—Supreme Court (Walsh, Henchy and Griffin J J.)—Separate judgments by each Judge— unreported- -8 December, 1974). £12,000 award for wife enticement An award of £12,000 was made by a Cork jury in the High Court on 17 January 1975 in an action brought by a former resident in the Bishopstown area who alleged that his wife had been enticed and debauched by a neighbour. The plaintiff in the action before Mr. Justice Gannon alleged that criminal conversation had taken place with his wife and he claimed da-mages from the defendant. The issue before the jury was one of assessment, and their members were told by the Judge at the conclusion of his direction to them that "there is no rule of thumb in matters like this. There is no element of reward for the plaintiff or of punish- ment for the defendant. Please bring out a reasonable figure." The plaintiff told the court that he and his wife married in 1960 and there were no children of the marriage but they had adopted two children. Their marriage had been a happy one for many years. He did not know the defendant, who lived nearby, until the defendant's wife died about 1970. They then became friendly to some extent, and he noticed after a while that there seemed to be some sort of relationship between his wife and the defendant, but he did not think it was a close relation- ship at first. In the summer of 1972, his wife went to Dublin by herself saying she wanted to see her sister. He did not want her to go but she went anyway, and over- stayed her visit by a few days. Later that year his wife told him she had been invited to a christening party given by a relative of the defendant's and that he had not been invited. He told her then that he did not want her to go to the party, but she insisted on going. "I waited until the early hours of the morning for her to return and then I heard her arriving in the defendant's van. I had the front door locked at that time but she got in through a window. I let her in through the window and then pushed her out of the 43

S u Í T A WAS £ 1 2 ' 0 0 0 ' OF WHICH £ , , ' 5 0 ° HAD BCCN p n At the first ordinary General Meeting of the' nan u y 1,1 M a r c h ' 1 9 5 4 ' if w a s a S r c e d «hat the com- P y s h o u , t I be allowed to borrow without limit. The p -ompany negotiated for an overdraft with the s h ° V ! " c , aI Bi » n k, who insisted that the Company uid g, vc a Debenture charging all its assets. This pro l t U r e W3S t 0 r a n k a s a l i r s t c h a r g e o n t h e l c a ^ u 3S r e g a r d s t h e Company's freehold and cha k p r e m i s c s ' ir w a s t o regarded as a fixed pro' 86 ' • a s r c S a r d s all other present or future T h c f 6 ^ ' lt W a s t 0 b e re 8arded as a floating security, Judgment. The amounts due by the Company to the an* were as follows: (a) January 1956—£14,570; (b) January 1966—£13,081; (c) January 1971—£60,260. On j. September, 1971, the Bank appointed the ppiicant as receiver of the assets of the company. The w h e ^ e r h as applied to the Court to determine (1) £1 lsn/T tllC d e b e n t u r e was valid; (2) whether it secures the ° n l y o r t h e l o t a l s u m n o w due—£98,000. At general meeting of 1954, the company gave its j s ^ n t t o the directors to borrow more than the t h U e d 5 h a r e capital of the company; it follows that £H ! ? o u n t sc curcd by the debenture is not limited to |'500, but that the whole amount is due. sin e . b a ' a n c e sheets and accounts for many years ce 1954 were accepted and signed at the general a f. ,n S of the company. The accounts, prepared by Bors, would have shown the amount borrowed by s Com Pany. On the authority of Grant v. U.K. ap'J Railway Co. — (1888) 40 Ch.D. 135 — aco ° t b e Company in general meeting of the of th 1 " 18 '- W o i d d have been a ratification of the actions s j l a r e directors in borrowing more than the issued rul h C a p ' t i d t b e company. The Court accordingly th c p t b a t t b e debenture of February, 1954, given by e f j C o m P a ny to the Provincial Bank was a valid and aea ,CtlVe £ ) e b e n t u r e » which created a valid charge mst the assets of the company in respect of monies and t 0 t h e B a n k i n e x c e s s o f £ 1 1 ' 5 0 0 - T h u s t h e B a n k other creditors are entitled to claim the total an jount due to them. F . We Burke, Clancy & Co. Ltd.—Application of John Receiver—Kenny J—unreported—23 May, terms of the Debenture are set out in the stody of two boys transferred from father to mother, due to father's misconduct. Can 9 0 c t o b e r ' 1974 « Kcnn .V J- ordered that the child W i fe b e Slanted custody of her infant h u s h ' a n d t h a t t h e y s h o u l d b e h a n d e d o v e r b y t h e the - d ° n h e r u n d e r t ak i ng not to take them outside D re . ,Uns diction. The husband appealed. (For full cJ!/® Us facts, see Gazette, May, 1972, p.147). The awa a ° f t h e t w o b °y s - aged 9 and 12, had been 1 0 ooys, a y a i a n a oeeu the T h t 0 t h C f 3 t h e r 0 n 2 7 A p r i 1 ' 1 9 7 2 , Si,1Ce t h e n ' take C W3S s a t i s f i e d th at improper relations had Wo n P l a ce between the husband and two other t i n t e d ° n e ° f t h e s e l i a i s o n s h a d t a k e n P l a c e a t a consul t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e i n t h e h o u s e - T h e J u d g c W o u j d ® r e d that in such circumstanccs misconduct of th K 6 a d e v a s t a t i n 8 effect on the moral standards ooys who are now aged 11 and 14. The husband