In Re Byrne [1913] HCA 30

52 HIGH COURT [1913.

H.C. or A. W. W. Rogers, for the respondent, was not called on. 1913. —

Dickason DicKason. Appeal dismissed.

THE Court dismissed the appeal.

Solicitors, for the appellant, Hedderwick, Fookes & Alston.

Solicitors, for the respondent, Rogers & Rogers. Bae

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.) In RE BYRNE.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

H.C. or A. Barrister and solicitor—Admission to practise—Managing clerk--Supreme Court

1913. Act 1912 (Pict.) (No. 2437), sec. 3. Mexpouryr, See. 3 of the Supreme Court Act 1912 provides that '' Notwithstanding Moats anything contained in any Act of the Parliament of Victoria or any Rules made in pursuance of any such Act the Supreme Court consisting of three Barton A.C.J., Judges of whom the Chief Justice shall be one may where under special Cavan Duty" circumstances it shall in its absolute discretion see fit eo to do with reference

to any person who shall within one year after the passing of this Act . satisfy the said Court that he has before the commencement of this Act served for ten years in Victoria as a managing clerk to some practising bar- rister and solicitor or barristers and solicitors and has been for such period of ten years bond fide engaged under his or their direction and supervision in the transaction and management of such matters of business as are usually trans- acted by barristers and soli: acertain examination 'be entitled to admission to practise as a barrister and solicitor for the Supreme Court without entering into or serving under articles of clerkship," &e.

tors order that such person shall upon passing"

The Supreme Court having decided that a person who had the control and management of the costs department of the office of a barrister and solicitor was not a " managing clerk" within the meaning of that section,