The Gazette 1911-12

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

AUGUST, 1911 J

imprisonment. The civil action was tried at • the Spring Assizes at Sligo before a common jury of the county, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and awarded her £80 damages. Judgment was duly entered for the plaintiff with costs. On the taxation of the plaintiff's costs objection was taken before the Taxing Master to an item of £16 2s., being the amount of the expenses paid to a medical witness, Dr. Howard V. Gatchell, of London. The objection was upheld and the item disallowed. The facts in respect to this item, as appeared from the affidavits filed in the case, were as follow :— By a letter dated Feb. 18, 1911, the plaintiff's solicitor asked the solicitors for the defendant to admit the deposition made by Dr. Gatchell on June 7, 1910, for the purpose of the criminal proceedings before the magistrates. The deposition in substance stated that the deceased had died from an abscess which had eaten into the brain, and that it was caused by a heavy blow which might have been inflicted by a spade or shovel. By a letter dated Feb. 27, 1911, the solicitors for the defendant agreed to the course proposed. By a further letter dated March 3, 1911, the solicitor for the plaintiff, on the advice of senior counsel, asked for an admission of the facts proved by Dr. Gatchell in his deposition, a summary of which accompanied the letter. On March 6, 1911, the solicitors for the defendant replied, stating that subject to an addition which they made they had no objection to admitting the facts. The pro posed addendum was a statement to the effect that in his (Dr. Gatchell's) opinion the deceased would have stood a better chance of recovery if he had been properly attended to immediately after he had received the injuries. On the same day the solicitor for the plaintiff despatched the following answer :—" As I did not receive your letter as to admitting the summary of Dr. Gatchell's evidence until one o'clock to-day, I could not take the responsibility of going on with the case in the absence of the doctor. He will, therefore, be; -in attendance." The trial took place on' the following day, March 7, 1911. The report of the Taxing Master was as follows :— .v~.Y '•••• nth Miiv, 1911. ;;d (1) The following is the statement of the grounds ' and reasons of my decision on the objection of the plaintiff to the disallowances in her costs taxed by

Obituary. MR. HENRY A. LEE. Solicitor, Dublin, died upon the 18th July, 1911, at Dublin. Mr. Lee, who was admitted in Hilary Term, 1869, under the special provisions of 30 & 31 Vie., Cap. 114, Section 26, practised formerly in partnership with his father, the late Mr, Robert C. Lee, at 2 Inns Quay, Dublin, and latterly at 19 & 20 Fleet Street, Dublin, under the style of Robert Lee & Son. MR. EDWARD H. DE MOLEYNS. Solicitor, Dublin, died upon the 24th Jiily, 1911, at his residence 18 Longford Terrace, Monkstown, Co. Dublin. Mr. De Moleyns, who was admitted in Michaelmas Term, 1843, practised at 17 Herbert Street, Dublin, up to the year 1875, when he was appointed Solicitor to the Bank of Ireland, which position he held until the year 1898, when he retired from practice. Recent Decisions affecting Solicitors. (Notes of decisions, whether in reported or unreported cases, of interest to Solicitors, are invited from Members.) KING'S BENCH DIVISION. (Before Dodd, J.) O'Brien v. O'Brien. June 2, 1911.— Costs — Taxation — Witnesses' expenses—Principal witness. IN an action under Lord Campbell's Act, owing to the delay on the part of the defen dant to admit certain facts, the main witness on behalf of the plaintiff was brought from London. The Taxing Master disallowed the entire of the costs in respect thereto : Held, that the Taxing Master was wrong in so doing, and that the exercise of his discretion did not extend so far as to enable him to disallow the costs of the main witness upon whose evidence the entire of the action depended. Regard should be had to counsel's directions for proofs, but they are not conclusive. This was an action under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, brought by the plaintiff, Kate O'Brien, against the defendant, James O'Brien, for damages. It appeared that the defendant had killed the husband of the plaintiff by a blow of a spade or shovel. The defendant was indicted and tried for manslaughter and found guilty, arid sentenced to a term of twelve months