The Gazette 1952-1955

chargeable only with the fixed duty of 1 0 provided that the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that the second conveyance is a bona fide conveyance to an Irish body corporate in pursuance o f an antecedent arrangement whereby the property was acquired for the benefit o f the company. I f necessary, the Act could provide for a maximum interval of time between the conveyance to the promoters and the conveyance by them to the company. As the granting o f the statutory concession would be in the discretion o f the Revenue Commissioners there would be no opportunity for fraud or evasion. (2) The attention o f the Council has also been drawn to another matter. Property is frequently acquired by trustees for religious communities and charities. Since the war many religious communities include individual members o f different nationalities some of whom may not be Irish citizens. Solicitors acting for trustees in such cases find some difficulty in advising the trustees that they are entitled to give the certificate under the Finance (No. 2) Act J947 to the effect that all the beneficiaries are Irish nationals. This appears to be a matter which was not forseen when the Act was passed. The sub­ mission o f the Council is that the next Finance Act should include a provision that where property is bought by trustees for a charity or a religious community ad valorem duty should be charged at a rate not exceeding 3% notwithstanding that some o f the members o f the community or the bene­ ficiaries o f the charity may not be Irish citizens, provided that the Commissioners are satisfied that the property is purchased bona fide for the objects of the charity or the community concerned. Where a widow sues under the Fatal Accidents Acts before obtaining letters o f administration to a deceased intestate w ill the proceedings necessarily be invalidated by reason o f the fa c t that the plaintiff is incorrectly described as “ widow and administratrix ” ? No. The Plaintiff was one o f the dependants of her deceased husband and brought an action for damages in respect o f his death by accident. She had not obtained letters o f administration when the writ was issued but described herself as “ widow and administratrix ” o f the deceased and in the endorsement o f the writ claimed damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. The proper endorsement under the Fatal Accidents would have been to describe the plaintiff as widow, and ITEMS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST

under the Law Preform (Miscellaneous Provis­ ions) Act 1934, which does not apply in Ireland, it would have been correct to describe the applicant as administratrix if a Grant had been obtained. It was conceded that the writ was a nullity so far as the claim under the Law Reform Act was concerned. As regards the claim under the Fatal Accidents Acts the Court held that the words “ widow and administratrix ” described the plaintiff’s personal status and did not declare the capacity in which she brought the action and that a fair and gram­ matical interpretation o f the endorsement was that the claim under the Fatal Accidents Acts was brought by her as widow and the claim under the Law Reform Act as administratrix. The proceedings under the Fatal Accidents Acts were accordingly not inval­ idated. Note, however, that this decision was based on the Fatal Accidents Acts and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, and that the last mentioned Act does not apply in Ireland. (Stebbings v. Holst & Co. Ltd., 1953. 1 W.L.R. 603.) A submission to arbitration provided that an appeal might be taken from the award provided that within 14 days from the date o f the award notice o f appeal should be given in writing to the place o f business o f the other party and that notice should be deemed to have been re­ ceived not later than 24 hours after posting. Was notice posted within the prescribed time but incorrectly addressed and received by the other party after the expiration o f 14 days a valid notice o f appeal ? No. The arbitrator’s award, in favour o f the plaintiffs, was dated Ju ly 30th. On August 12th the defendants posted a letter giving notice of appeal to the plaintiffs, addressed to the plaintiff’s by name and at an address in the town where they carried on business, but the street and number given in the address were in fact those o f another company with a similar name carrying on business in the same town. That company forwarded the letter to the plaintiffs but it did not reach them until after the expiration o f 14 days from Ju ly 30th. The Court held that 14 days from the date o f the award would have expired at midnight on August 13th 14th. The question arose as to the meaning of the provision that notice “ shall be deemed to have been received not later than 24 hours after the same has been so sent or left.” The provision would seem to indicate that a posting 24 hours before midnight on August 13 th/14th would be a good compliance whether the document was actually received or not. I f the letter had been addressed to the Company in the town where they carried on business without any street or number that might have been sufficient, but when a notice was sent with a wrong and misleading address so that the