The Gazette 1977

GAZETTE

APRIL 1977

his solicitor orally as to how the chat- tels could legally be settled upon the donee, and the solicitor advised that this should be done by delivery, with a subsequent letter confirming it But the donor in fact made no delivery then, either actual or constructive. In 1962, the donee was living in Dublin, and continued to reside in Dublin, until 15 November 1971, when he entered into residential occupation of the lands as tenant for life. It followed that in the absence of delivery in 1962 the gift of the chattels was legally inoperative. It is also contended that when the donee took possession of the lands in 1971 he also went into possession of the chattels. However, the donor continued to reside in the same premises after 1971 until he died in October 1972, at the age of 85. When the donee entered into beneficial occupation and possession of the lands in 1971 under the settlement, it must be assumed that, as the person now solely working the lands, he was put in possession of the livestock and farm implements, and that he, his wife and 13 year old son, were given by the donor sole possession of certain rooms in the house, which would include furniture and chattels. As tenant for life, the donee went into beneficial occupation in 1971, and the donor withdrew from the running of the farm. The livestock, farm machinery and implements, insofar as they were already on the lands in 1962, passed into the possession of the donee. There is no doubt that the donor, by allowing the donee, his wife, and son, to occupy certain rooms in the house, intended to part with the chattels in those rooms to the donee. The remainder of the chattels, insofar as they subsisted at the date of the death of the donor, had passed under his will to his two daughters in equal shares. A declaration will be made accordingly, but it will be necessary to hold an inquiry to determine which chattels have passed to the donee. The appeal will be allowed to that extent. Conner v. Quinlan and others — Supreme Court (Henchy J., Kenny J. and Parke J.) per Henchy J. and Kenny J. — unreported — 23 February 1977. EDUCATION - BREACH OF CONTRACT - CONSPIRACY Plaintiff awarded £367 damages against school Manager for not appointing him a Principal of a

National School — Four other defendants, officials of Cork Branch of I.N.T.O., guilty of breach of contract and conspiracy —Plaintiff awarded £1,562 against them for having to transfer to Co. Wicklow — Full contribution to be paid by these four defendants to School Manager in respect of £367 damages. Plaintiff claims damages against Canon Ahern for breach of contract to appoint him Principal of Ovens National School, Co. Cork, and against the remaining defendants, who are respectively Chairman, Vice- Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary of the Cork City Branch of the Irish National Teachers Organisation (I.N.T.O.). The plaintiff, a native of Cork, qualified as a primary teacher in 1954, and, save for two years, has since taught in various schools in Ireland. In 1963, he was appointed to Schull National School, Co. Cork, and eventually became Principal of a two teacher boys school. In 1972, he obtained an appointment as Assistant at a larger school at New Inn, Lower Glanmire, on the outskirts of Cork City. Shortly afterwards, he was offered and accepted the post of Vice- Principal, although the local officials in the I.N.T.O. told him that more junior applicants who had been longer in New Inn were entitled to be considered first. The plaintiff refused to attend an arbitration by the I.N.T.O. as to whether his appoint- ment as Vice-Principal was valid, and eventually resigned from the I.N.T.O. The defendant members of the Cork City Branch of the I.N.T.O. then made repeated representations to the Bishop of Cork to have the plaintiff removed from the position of Vice- Principal, but were unsuccessful. In April 1974, Canon Ahern advertised in the newspapers the post of principal of Ovens National School. The plaintiff sent particulars of his qualifications and experience to Canon Ahern. Eventually Canon Ahern drew up a list of 8 names, which included those of the plaintiff and Denis Lynch. The effective Rules governing appointments are the Rules for National Schools of the Department of Education of 22 January 1965, and more particularly Rule 15. This is supplemented by a circular of the Department dated January 1969, which relates specifically to the details of appointing a Principal, where the staff exceeded three persons. Under

J.'s decision will be allowed. So held by O'Higgins CJ., and Parke J. Kenny J. having considered in detail the cases of (1) Miller v. South of Scotland Electricity Board- 1958 Sessions Cases, (2) Hughes v. Lord Advocate - (1963) A.C., and (3) The Wagon Mound (No. 2), - (1967) A.C., also came to the conclusion that the Asphalt Co. was liable in negligence and in nuisance, and that the appeal should be allowed. Wade v. Connolly and South of Ireland Asphalt Co. — Supreme Court (O'Higgins C.J., Kenny J. and Parke J.) — unreported — 21 January 1977. The donee who enters into beneficial occupation of lands in 1971 is entitled to receive the cattle, stock and farm implements donated in 1962, still extant, but never delivered. Subject to enquiry the donee is also entitled to 'the chattels in the rooms occupied by himself and his family in the house since 1971. The donor was a retired District Justice who resided in his ancestral home, including a farm of 346 acres, near Ballyneen, Co. Cork. In 1962 he was a widower with three children, the eldest son, Cornelius Conner, the plaintiff in this action (hereinafter called "the donee"), and two daughters. As the donor was anxious that the family property should descend to the male line, he executed a deed of settlement in December 1962, whereby his house and lands, save the property specified later, were conveyed to trustees to be settled on the donee for life, with remainder to the first and other sons of the donee successively in tail male, with an ultimate remainder to the donee in fee simple. The donor's daughter, Ann Conner, received from this settlement "The Farm House", and one half of "The Coach House". O'Keeffe P. had rightly held that this was an effective settlement giving the donee a beneficial estate for life in most of the property. It is, however, contended that O'Keeffe P. had misdirected himself in holding that the chattels (cattle, farm machinery, implements, furniture, family heirlooms and silver) on the lands settled were not legally transferred by the donor to the donee by a separate gift. When the settlement was being effected in 1962, the donor consulted 6 PERSONAL PROPERTY - CHATTELS