34 / 262
ENGLISH CURRENT LAW DIGEST
In reading these cases note should be taken of the differences in English and Irish statute law.
All dates relate to dates reported in
The Times
newspaper.
Auctioneer
Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice
Karminski and Lord Justice Buckley.
An auctioneer, both under the common law since 1788 and
under conditions for car auction sales in common use, was
held to have a lien on goods auctioned and can sue the
purchaser in his own name for the whole purchase price, even
though the auctioneer has already received enough by way of
deposit to cover his own commission and charges.
Chelmsford Auctions Ltd. v. Poole; C.A.; 20/12/1972.
Banking
Before Sir John Donaldson, President, Mr. R. Davies and
Mr. H. Roberts.
When banks are faced with a writ of sequestration against
assets in a client's account they are bound to give the com-
missioners of sequestration the desired information and make
the required payment from the client's account, even against
the client's wishes and in spite of the confidence inherent in
the banker-client relationship. A bank would be acting un-
reasonably in future if it required the sequestrators to obtain
a specific order from the court to enforce the payment.
Eckman & others v. Midland Bank and Another; National
Industrial Relations Board; 7/12/72.
Certiorari
The Divisional Court refused an application for certiorari
by Colin Hewitt, aged 20, of Compton Street, Derby, to quash
an order made by Chesterfield just'ces sentencing him to an
effective total of nine months' imprisonment for driving
offences.
The Lord Chief Justice, who sat with Mr. Justice Ashworth
and Mr. Justice Willis, said that section 107(3) of the
Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, imposed a mandatory duty on
justices to state the reason why they considered that no
sentence other than imprisonment was appropriate when
sentencing a person under 21 but failure to do so did not
affect the vahdity of the sentence passed.
Regina v. Chesterfield Justices Ex parte Hewitt; QBD;
12/12/1972.
Crime
Before Lord Justice Phillimore, Lord Justice Stephenson,
Lord Justice Lawton, Mr. Justice Melford Stevenson and Mr.
Justice Brabin.
[Judgment delivered December 15th]
A five-judge court held that the meaning of "dishonesty" in
section 1(1) of the Theft Act, 1968, was a matter to be
decided by a jury applying the current standards of ordinary
decent people, and that a taking by an employee in breach of
instructions but to which no moral obloquy could reasonably
be attached was not stealing within section 1(1).
Regina v. Feeley; CA; 21/12/1972.
Before Lord Justice Edmund Davies, Mr. Justice Cantly
and Mr. Just'ce Browne.
A man with a bad criminal record who was wrongly cross-
examined about it by his co-accused on their joint trial for
different offences lost an appeal against conviction because, the
court held in an unprecedented case, no miscarriage of justice
had occurred.
Regina v. Lovett; C.A.; 21/12/1972.
Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Willis and Mr. Justice Talbot.
A university student who, after eating one course of a,meal
in a Chinese restaurant, decided not to pay for it but waited
until the waiter was out of the room before leaving the
restaurant, d'd not practise a deception to evade payment of
the debt.
Ray v. Sempers; Q.B.D.; 20/12/1972.
Before Lord Justice Lawton, Mr. Justice Melford Stevenson
and Mr. Justice Brabin.
[Judgement delivered December 8th]
"Evidence" in rule 2 of the Judges' Rules, 1964, "As soon as
a police officer has evidence which would afford reasonable
grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an
offence, he shall caution that person . . . before putting . . .
any questions, or further questions . . ." means evidence which
shows the officer that he has the beginnings of a case against
the suspect.
Regina v. Osborne and Regina v. Virtue; C.A.; 11/12/1972.
Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Ashworth and Mr. Justice Willis.
If the Divisional Court were to allow a doctor's appeal from
a mandatory 12 months' driving disqualification under section
5(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, the door to a narrow
escape route would be opened dangerously wide.
Holroyd v. Berry; Q.B.D.; 12/12/72.
Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Ashworth and Mr. Justice Willis.
At committal proceedings the prosecution have a d'scre-
tion not to call even a principal witness if a prima facie case
can be shown from supporting evidence. The function of com-
mittal proceedings is to ensure that no one shall stand trial
unless a prima facie case has been made out; they are not a
rehearsal for the defence to try out cross-examination on
prosecution witnesses with a view to using the result to ad-
vantage at trial.
Regina v. Epping and Harlow; Q.B.D.; 15/12/1972.
Evidence
Before Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice
Will's and Mr. Justice Talbot.
[Judgment delivered December 5th]
There is no rule of law that justices must accept the evi-
dence of a witness merely because it is not challenged, the
Lord Chief Justice said when giving judgment on an appeal
from Wallasey justices.
O'Connell v. Adams; Q.B.D.; 6/12/1972.
Redundancy
Before Sir Samuel Cooke, Mr. R. Boyfield and Mr. C. G.
Robinson.
[Judgment delivered December 15th]
The mere facts that an employee for a short period worked
hours similar to those which he had worked under his contract
with a previous employer and accepted wages calculated on
the old basis were not necessarily conclusive evidence that
there had been an offer by conduct by the new employer to
re-engage the employee on all the terms of the previous con-
tract within the meaning of section 3 (2) (a) of the Redun-
dancy Payments Act, 1965, or that he had accepted such an
offer. Accordingly he had been dismissed for the purposes of
redundancy payment.
Catin v. Botley Garages Ltd.; National Industrial Relations
Court; 20/12/1972.
Before Sir Samuel Cooke, Mr. R. Boyfield and Professor T.
L. Johnston.
An employee who was given notice of dismissal before the
provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 1971, giving a right
to compensation for unfair dismissal came into force, but
which expired after the Act had come into force, was held
not to be entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal since
h
;
s employment had been terminated forthwith by an agree-
ment made with his employers during the period of notice
prior to the Act.
Lees v. Arthur Greaves (Lees); National Industrial Rela-
tions Court; 14/12/1972.
Time
Before Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justue
Karminski and Mr. Justice Megarry.
[Judgments delivered December 14th]
Where an Act of Parliament prescribes a period of time for
doing any act which can only be done if the offices of the
court are open on the day when the period expires, and that
day is a Saturday, Sunday, or other dies non, the time is to
be extended until the next day on which the offices of the
court are open. Mr. Justice Megarry said: "The difference
33