The Gazette 1964/67

stating that they had instructions to obtain judgement against the company " to safeguard the plaintiffs' interests ", and subsequently they issued and served a writ against the company. Being later informed that the company was insolvent and was going into voluntary liquidation, the plaintiffs did not proceed with the action, but brought an action against the defendant. The defendant contended that there had been a binding election by the plaintiffs to pursue their remedy against the principals, the company. On appeal: HELD—Although the commencement of proceedings by the plaintiffs against the principals was prima facie evidence of election, the issue of the writ against them was not necessarily an abandon ment of the plaintiffs' cause of action against the defendant, the agent; and, on the facts in the present case, there had not been any final election by the plaintiffs to rely on the liability of the company in exoneration of the defendant. Appeal dismissed by Court of Appeal. (Willmer, Davies and Russell L.JJ., Clarkson,' Booker, Limited v. Andjel. Law Times, September 25th, 1964, p. 540.) WEEKLY HALF-HOLIDAY : FERMOY FERMOY SOLICITORS Members please note that as and from the first Saturday in October the solicitors practising in Fermoy intend to take the weekly half-holiday on Saturday instead of Wednesday as heretofore. DUBLIN SOLICITORS' BAR ASSOCIATION At the Annual General Meeting of the above Association held at the Solicitors, Buildings, Four Courts, Dublin, on Monday the 26th October, 1964, the following Officers and Council were elected for the year 1964/65. President—"Mx. J. M. Farrelly. Vice-President— Mr. Ernest Margetson. Honorary Secretary —Mr. Gordon Henderson. Honorary Treasurer— Mr. Edmond O. Sheil. Council— Messrs. V. Wolfe, E. Byrne, K. Burfce, R. Knight, G. A. Williams, G. Doyle, P. McMahon, A. O'Huadhaigh and M. Kenny. OBITUARY MR. ANDREW J. O'FLYNN, Solicitor, died on the ist July, 1964. Mr. O'Flynn served his apprenticeship with the late Mr. Patrick O'Flynn, Manorhamilton, , Co. Leitrim, was admitted in Easter Sittings, 1924, and practised at 4 Lr. Cecil Street, Limerick, under the style of A. J. O'Flynn & Co.

the Judge and corrected by him and was handed to his solicitors, showing the Judge's deletions, altera tions and additions to fill gaps made by the deletions. After hearing the appeal it was submitted by the appellant's wife that the revised version differed in a marked degree from the original prepared by the shorthand writer, in particular in regard to the expressions of the findings of fact, that in the original version these accorded ill with the conclusion ultimately reached and that in the circumstances the Court ought not to look only at the revised transcript as approved by the Judge, but also at the original uncorrected version. HELD—Although the Court would not be slow to censure a judge's rewriting of his own judgement after the drawing up of the order so as to put a completely different complexion on the issues in dispute, and in such a case it would be necessary for the Court of Appeal to look at the transcript in its original form, an application for that purpose would need to be supported by cogent evidence, preferably by somebody who took a note of the judgement. In the absence of evidence to show that a judge deliberately altered his judgement so as to change its whole character, only the transcript approved by the judge could be looked at and not the original version. Appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal. (Wilmer, Dankwerts and Davies, L.JJ., Bromley v, Bromley: Law Times, September 25th, 1954, p. 541.) Conflict of laws When a question arises as to the validity of the laws of a foreign country it was the duty of the court to take notice of it; in the circumstances of the case the court would direct a letter to be written to the Foreign Secretary asking whether Her Majesty's Government had granted any recognition to the German Democratic Republic by its govern ment. So held in Court of Appeal (Lord Denning, M. R. Pearson and Salmon L.JJ.), Carl-Zeiss- Stiftung v. Rayner and Keeler Limited & Ors.— (The Law Times, September zjth, 1964, p. 540.) Agency Acting on behalf of his undisclosed principal, the defendant, an agent for a travel agency company (contracting as if he were principal), booked flights from Athens to London with the plaintiffs and received credit from them for the tickets, having previously done business with them on credit terms. The plaintiffs' solicitors wrote letters to both the defendant and the company stating that, failing payment, proceedings for recovery from the recipient of the letter might be commenced. They subse- sequently wrote further to the travel agency company 46