The Gazette 1964/67

any doctor would be prosecuted for it. Ultimately each doctor should decide what he should do by reference to his conscience. In the discussion which followed this problem was dealt with by several speakers. Most doctors seemed to suggest that in such cases it was not their duty to report any crime to the Guards, but, in appropriate cases, merely to notify the birth. Junior doctors examining accident cases in hospital were advised by their senior colleagues not to submit a report as to the capability of the patient to drive without the consent of the patient, even if the Guards try to obtain such report almost immediately. Mr. Justice Murnaghan reminded the doctors that in strict law if a person knows that a felony has been committed and does not report it to the authorities, he is an accessory to such a crime. SYMPOSIUM ON ROAD SAFETY A Symposium on Road Safety was held at the Intercontinental Hotel, Dublin 4, from 9th to nth December, inclusive. Morning sessions each day ran from 10 a.m. to i p.m. approx., and afternoon sessions from 2.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. approx. At each session a principal speaker, generally a foreign expert on the subject, delivered a paper of about one hour's duration. Other experts followed with shorter contributions (approx. half-hour each) and then there was opportunity for questions and general discussions. All the papers to be read by the principal speakers, were available in print in advance of the symposium. Attendance was mainly by invitation but members of the public also attended. Negligence in contract or tort Architects, whose employment by the plaintiff included supervision by the architects of the con struction of drains, were sued by the plaintiff for breach of duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in that supervision. The supervision ended more than six years before the writ was issued. The architects admitted that, if the damage (viz., cracking of drain pipes and settlement of the premises) occurred at all, it occurred within six years before the issue of the writ. It was conceded that, if the cause of action lay in contract only, it arose more than six years before the writ was issued. On a preliminary point of law whether the action was statute-barred under section z (i) (a) of the Limita tion Act, 1939. HELD—The duty of the architects to exercise CASES OF THE MONTH

reasonable care and skill, where the failure (as here) was to do the very thing contracted to be done, arose out of contract alone, and, in cases of professional relationships, such a duty did not arise also inde pendently of contract; accordingly, the action was statute barred. (Bagot v. Stevens Scanlon & Co., Law Times, 6th November, 1964, Vol. 235-627.) Attention of members is also directed to the case of Clarke & Anor. v. Kirby Smith, reported in the Society's GAZETTE of June, 1964, Vol. 58, No. 2, at page 16. Section n (i) (a) of the Irish Statutes of Limita tions is somewhat more circumscribed than section 2 (i) (a) 1939 of the English Statute but both refer to actions based on simple contract. Costs in equity suit Reserved judgment was delivered by Teevan J. in the High Court in Dublin on the last day of Trinity Term in Mangan v. McCarthy and Others, a Circuit Appeal from Co. Kerry. The point in issue was a simple one, but one on which there seems to have been no direct authority. The plaintiff claimed and obtained in the Circuit Court an injunction and £10 damages with costs of action in respect of a private nuisance and the question was whether the proper basis for ascertaining the costs payable by the defendants was to be arrived at by treating plaintiff's land or the defendants' lands as the subject matter of the action. In the Circuit Court Rules, 1954, Order 58 r. 25, of the Rules of the Circuit Court, 1950, is amended by adding " Provided always that in equity suits or proceedings, during the conduct of which any land the subject matter thereof has not been sold, the value of such land shall be taken to be fifty times the Poor Law Valuation ". The action was commenced by an Equity Civil Bill and the principal relief sought was an injunction restraining the defendants from so using their lands as to cause a nuisance to the plaintiff in the owner ship and occupation of his lands. The defendants' lands were a rubbish dump, of negligible value: the plaintiff had a valuable farm adjoining. Offensive material from the rubbish dump was on occasions carried to the plaintiff's land by reason of the absence of proper fencing. The County Registrar taxed the plaintiff's costs by reference to fifty times the poor law valuation of the plaintiff's lands, and the learned President of the Circuit Court approved this taxation. The defendants appealed to the High Court. Teeven J. affirmed the President of the Circuit Court, holding that, although the acts complained of originated in the user of the defendants' lands, the lands the subject matter of the suit were the