By the time this issue of De Rebus appears the new year will have just begun. Many of our readers will be away on holiday and will read this only on their return to office. This time of the year is holiday time, a time to relax after a long year's work, a time to rest the body and refresh the mind. During this time - the switching of the years - we forget the past and look with new hope to the future. We shed the old year and, with it, its successes and failures. At the same time we enter a new year with its promise of new achievement.
It has been known generally for some time that in consideration of certain payments being made by the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund to the Provincial Administrations provincial hospitals will waive their charges for medical attention to persons injured in motor accidents. Considerable uncertainty has, however, existed regarding just how this arrangement will work out in practice.
The vast majority of accident cases involving personal injury are settled before trial and a very large proportion of these settlements are effected by Attorneys without the advice of Counsel as to quantum of damages. The assessment of quantum in such cases is thus very much within theï¿½ province of the Attorney. This type of work has, however, on the face of it, not been made any easier by the decision of the Appellate Division in the recent case of Goliath vs. Marine and Trade Insurance Company Limited*.
By die inwerkingtreding van die nuwe Seï¿½lwet No. 77 van 1968, en veral sover as wat dit betrekking het op die addisionele inkomste seël wat ons op ons tjeks moet plak, het die interessante vraag opgeduik tot watter mate 'n stuk wat nie behoorlik geseel is, ongeldig kan wees of watter gevolge dit kan hê waar prestasie of 'n handeling, betaling byvoorbeeld, op 'n spesifieke dag moes geskied het.
There have been two important Acts passed by the Central Government recently repealing Pre-Union Statutes in the four Provinces. In neither case were the Law Societies concerned consulted in advance with the result that complications have since arisen.
The following letter which has been sent to the Editor was not in fact written by a complaining widow but was composed by an attorney. The names are fictitious. The letter was written to dramatize the difficulties experienced by attorneys throughout the Republic and by Executors generally and, presents a composite picture of criticism of the new Administration of Estates Act which is widely supported.