The Gazette 1964/67

was not true the solicitor ought to be cleared of such a charge. The case does not appear to have been officially reported and, as published in The Times, the judge's remarks were divorced from their context. There may have been circumstances connected with this case not disclosed with the report which were the real basis of the judge's condemnation of the conduct with which he was dealing. If such circum stances were not present many will feel that the pro hibition laid down by the judge was too wide. Most solicitors would be surprised to learn of any universal rule whereby merely interviewing any witness, whether already sub poenaed or not by another party to the proceedings, is regarded as a breach of pro priety. Cases will occur in which common sense will suggest that it would be improper to seek to inter view a particular witness. There seems, however, to be no valid reason why a solicitor, preparing instructions for counsel for the defence in a criminal prosecution should be obliged to rely upon deposi tions or proofs of evidence taken down by the police or someone else if he has reason to believe that they may be incomplete or may omit to deal with matters within the knowledge of a witness which he foresees will be important for his client's defence. The popular term 'witness for the prosecution,' though sanctioned by usage, is really a misnomer. Provided that he scrupulously avoids anything which would constitute an abuse of his privilege the general view of the profession has been that a solicitor is entitled to interview any witness whose evidence may be necessary for the presentation of the facts of his client's case to the court." (THE GAZETTE, November 1943, page 25.) "A member has drawn attention to a judicial pro nouncement which should be noted in connection with the paragraph under the above heading in the November GAZETTE. In Attorney General v, Fitz gerald (68 I. L. T. R. 249) there was an appeal by Fitzgerald, the accused, against an order of the Circuit Judge refusing bail and remanding him in custody. The accused had been tried on charges on which the jury had disagreed and fresh charges were pending against him. One of the grounds on which the State opposed the granting of bail was the alle gation that the accused had interfered with State witnesses. Per Hanna, J. 'The next ground was that of interfering with State witnesses. I am not quite clear what "interference" means as suggested by the affidavit. Both accused and his solicitor, if they so desire, may interview witnesses for the State, so long as they do not suborn them to perjury. The mere fact of talking to or having a drink with a State witness is not of itself sufficient to disentitle the applicant to bail.' This dictum of Mr. Justice Hanna

should serve to dispel any doubts, if they ever existed in this country, as to solicitors' rights in such cases." (THE GAZETTE, February 1944, page 44.) SOLICITORS' GOLFING SOCIETY SUMMER MEETING AT HEADFORT G.C. 26™ JUNE, 1965 WINNERS President's Pri^e: E. J. Dillon (5) (Dublin) 33 pts. ; D. P. Shaw (12) (Mullingar) 32 pts. R}>aft Cup : J. McGowan (16) (Balbriggan) 32 pts. (2nd 9); S. M. Mahon (18) (Tullamore) 32 pts. More than 30 miles: W. A. Tormey (12) (Athlone) 3 2 pts. isf Nine : R. Taylor (24) (Drogheda) 17 pts. ind Nine : P. A. Noonan (13) (Athboy) 18 pts. (on last 6). Best card by Lot: T. D. McLoughlin (Dublin) 26 pts. COMMISSIONERS OF CHARITABLE DONATIONS & BEQUESTS BOARD MEETINGS MICHAELMAS TERM, 1965 Tuesday 5th October, 1965

19th 2nd November, 1965 i6th ,, 1965 3oth „ 1965 14th December, 1965 J. S. MARTIN, Secretary.

3ist August, 1965.

LAND REGISTRY HIGH COURT APPLICATIONS

Where the land is subject to the provisions of Section 45 of the Land Act, 1965, the affidavit of the applicant for an Order under Section 5 2 of the Registration of Title Act, 1891, should contain an averment (if it be the case) that he is a qualified