The Gazette 1918-19

APRIL, 1919]

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

63

against the owner of the rubbish whose servants or employees have made the deposit ; but before proceeding inquiry should be made to ascertain whether this has been done with the concurrence, express or implied, of the employer or contrary to his instructions. In the latter event, as above mentioned report shows, an action against him cannot succeed. If credence be given to the Greengrocer, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, apples just now are dear and the monetary equivalent is scarce ; hence, if your neighbour's apple trees overhang your land, in exercising what may be your indubitable right of lopping the trespassing boughs you may experience temptation of unusual cogency to retain the apples thereon for your own consumption. Before yielding to this temptation it would be well to read Mills v. Brooker (Times Law Reports, Vol. 35, p. 261). The reference will teach you that retention constitutes you a gratuitous bailee with all the undefined responsibility incident to such bailment, and that consumption of the apples may entail upon you payment in the way of damages far beyond the extortion of the greengrocer. Calendar of the Incorporated Law Society, 1919. Society's Calendar and Law Directory for 1919 can be obtained in the Secretary's Office, price 4s., or by post 4s- 6d. E

clearly payable subject to the income tax, and the over-payments having been made under a mistake of law, same were not recoverable as such by the trustees. In practice it is sometimes difficult to distinguish whether a payment has been made under mistake of fact or under mistake in law. For instance, in this case, suppose that the deed of covenant was not acceptable to the trustees, and that in its absence, guided by the practice of the testator, the trustees assumed that the deed provided for payment, not subject to, but free from, income tax, would the same decision have been given ? Maliciotts Injuries. Destruction of, or injury to, farm imple ments and machinery has recently been an accompaniment to the unsatisfied claim for increased wage of the agricultural labourer, the damage thereby entailed on the employer often exceeds far the cost of repair or of renewal. From injury to a tractor or a reaper and binder in a district remote from any industrial centre serious loss may ensue from the delay thereby caused in farming operations at a critical time. The judgment of the Court of Appeal (Ireland) in Noblett v. Leilrim County Council (Irish Law Times Reports, Vol. 53, p. 25) is, therefore, timely and important, establishing as it does that on proof of a claim founded on such injury, if malicious, the amount to be awarded should include all damages conse quent on the injury. In Joseph Rank, Limited v. Craig (Law Times Report, Vol. 119, p. 751) the decision of the Lords Justices of Appeal intimates that caution should be exercised before an owner institutes proceedings to prevent dumping of rubbish upon his land. This cause of complaint is frequently experienced on town lots in course of development as building sites. Even in Dublin owners have not been exempt from this wrong, notwith standing ample dumping ground provided av Ballybough by the Dublin Corporation : parum locuples continenle ripa. Naturally one is inclined to institute proceedings

ALL communications connected with THE GAZETTE (other than advertisements) should be addressed to the Secretary of the Society, Solicitors' Buildings, Four Courts, Dublin,