The Gazette 1952-1955

chance o f it being received in the ordinary course o f the post was remote the Court could not say that there was at the outset a proper notice which must be deemed to be received within the contrac­ tual time. (Getreide-Import-Gesellschaft m.b.h. v. Contimar S.A. Compania Industrial Comercial y Maritima, 1953. x W.L.R. 207.) UNQUALIFIED CONVEYANCER Ennis, Ju ly 8th, 1952—Legal Practitioner— Conveyancer—Preparation o f agreement for sale by auctioneer—Remuneration—Acting or practising as a conveyancer contrary to the Conveyancers (Ireland) Act, 1864 (27 Viet. c. 85. 3). By section 3 o f the Conveyancers (Ireland) Act 1864, it is provided that “ Every person who shall, for or in expectation o f any fee, gain or reward in anywise act or practise as a conveyancer, special pleader or draughtsman in equity in Ireland, without being duly qualified to act and practise ” as provided in section 2 o f the Act, other than and except barristers-at-law, solicitors, and certain other persons named thereafter, “ shall forfeit and pay for every such offence a sum not exceeding twenty pounds nor less than five pounds, to any person who shall sue or prosecute for same.” O’H. the tenant o f a county council cottage agreed to sell it to M. They decided to go to W., an auctioneer, to get the agreement drawn up. The parties duly went to W.’s office, when the agreement was drawn up and signed. A sum of 10 - was then paid by M. to W. under circumstances which are dealt with fully in the judgment o f O’Byrne, J. H eld : That the auctioneer had acted contrary to section 3 and was liable to a penalty thereunder. The facts appear sufficiently from the head-note and from the judgment o f O’Byrne, J. Joseph Healy, S.C. and Owen Keane for the plaintiff. F. Vaughan-Buckley, S.C. and John Kenny for the defendant. O’Byrne, J., in the course of his judgment said that the plaintiff had sued for a penalty under the Conveyancers (Ireland) Act 1864, sec. 3. His Lordship was satisfied beyond doubt that the sum o f ten shillings had in fact been paid to Mr. Walshe for drawing up the agreement and the only question was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Mr. Vaughan-Buckley had submitted that the case was really in the nature o f a prosecution and that the same standard o f proof was required. On that point, his lordship was satisfied that when the

question o f payment had been mentioned Mr. Walshe had been reluctant to take any money, but that finally he had taken it. Had the words o f the Act been in expectation o f money he would not be in favour o f deciding for the plaintiff for at the time o f drawing up the agreement the defendant was not expecting to get any reward, but the words “ for reward ” in the Act made all the difference. Since the defendant had had to be pressed to take the money he would impose the minimum penalty of £5 with costs in both courts. Solicitors for Plaintiff:—Kerin, Hickman and O’Donnell. Solicitors for Defendant:—P. F. Moloney & Co. (Plunkett v. Walshe, 1952. 86, I.L.T .R ., 167.) SOLICITORS’ APPRENTICES Contributions under the Social Welfare Act, 1952 The following circular has been sent by the Council to the Bar Associations— D ear S ir , I have been directed to draw the attention o f the officers and committees o f Bar Associations to the provisions o f Schedule I of the Social Welfare Act 1952 defining insurable persons. The Council are advised that under the terms o f the Schedule a solicitor’s apprentice is an insurable person whether or not he receives a salary or wrage and whether or not a premium is payable under the apprenticeship deed. Representations have been made to the Min­ ister for Social Welfare asking that solicitors’ apprentices (other than law clerk apprentices under section 16) should be excluded by regulation from the definition of insurable persons. The deputation, which was received by the Secretary of the Depart­ ment, however, are of the opinion that it is unlikely that the Minister will accede to the Society’s request. It is, apparently, the considered policy of the Gov­ ernment to draw within the scope of the Social Welfare scheme the whole body consisting of 700,000 employees and apprentices within the State as well as Civil Servants whose remuneration does not exceed £600 per annum. I f solicitors’ apprentices are not excluded from the scheme weekly contributions must be made in respect of them. In the case o f an apprentice who does not receive a salary the responsibility for the weekly contribution of 4 8d. will be upon the master. The object o f this letter is to draw the attention of the members of Bar Associations to the position so that a solicitor, when arranging the amount of the premium payable under an apprenticeship deed,