103 / 294
1967, failed in an appeal on the ground that the trial judge
was wrong in rejecting a submission of no case to answer
because there was no evidence o fthe proportion of alcohol in
the blood although an analyst's certificate was produced.
Their Lordships, in a reserved judgment, dismissed an
appeal by J. Banks, of Accrington, from conviction
at Lancashire Quarter Sessions (deputy chairman: Judge
Lawton) last July. He was fined £25, and disqualified for
twelve months.
Section 2 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1962, contains a
proviso that an analyst's certificate shall not be evidence of
the matters certified "unless a copy has been served on the
accused not less than seven days before the hearing", and par.
21 of Schedule 1 to the 1967 Act provides that the copy may
be either personally served or sent by registered post or
recorded delivery sendee.
[Regina v Banks; C.A.; 21/2/1972.]
Defamation
It is often very desirable and sometimes necessary that where a
plaintiff in a libel action complains of words as defamatory in
their natural and ordinary meaning and that meaning is not
clear and explicit, he should be required to give particulars of
the inferential meanings (the "non-legal innuendo") which he
says the words bear and on which he will rely at the trial, so
that the defendant may know in advance how to meet the case
against him.
[Allsop v Church of England Newspaper Ltd. and Others;
C. of A.; 27/2/1972.]
Family
In custody cases under the Guardianship of Minors Act, 1971,
it was wrong to say that orders in favour of both parents should
be made only in exceptional cases, the Divisional Court said
when allowing a father's appeal against an order by magis-
trates granting legal custody of the three children of the family
to the mother, with care and control also to her. The court
varied the order by giving custody to both parents, provided
they would co-operate for the benefit of the minors.
[In re J (Minors);
Div.Ct.; 28/2/1972.]
Names of magistrates should always appear at the top of
justices' reasons for their decision in appeals, Sir George
Baker, President, said in the Family Division when allowing a
father's appeal against an order under the Guardianship of
Minors Act, 1971, which gave his daughter's custody to his
wife and remitting the case to a new panel of magistrates.
[In re N (a Minor); Q.B.D.; 22/2/1972.]
There was no inference that a wife who worked for a period
for payment and thereafter continued to work to help her
husband to support her eight children of an association with
another man had an equitable interest in the husband's busi-
ness or in the house bought from the proceeds of his business
interests.
[Heyland v Heyland; C.A.; 26/2/1972.]
Adultery is no longer a serious social offence, and there is no
reason why direct questions about alleged adultery should not
be asked of a party or witness in divorce proceedings by way
of pre-trial interrogatories where the answers are necessary for
disposing fairly of the cause and for saving costs.
[Nest v Nest and Another; C.A.; 26/2/1972.]
The same principles of law applied in considering a mistress's
share in a house as applied when considering a wife's interest
in the matrimonial home. The court must look at the equity
at the time the parties separated and not 'at their actual
contribution.
Their Lordships so held in allowing an appeal by Miss
J. C. Cooke, of Bishop Sutton, near Bristol, from a judgment
of Mr. Justice Plowman in which he found that she had a
one-twelfth share in a bungalow which she had helped to
build with the defendant. Mr. D. Head, St. Leonards -on-Sea,
Sussex
[Cooke v Head; C.A.; 19/1/1972.]
Landlord and Tenant
Lord Justice Roskill, in the Court of Appeal, said that it was
desirable, as a matter of practice, that indictments charging
the offence of persistently withdrawing or withholding services
reasonably required for the occupation of premises let by a
landlord, contrary to Section 30 (2) of the Rent Act, 1965,
should adequately follow' the wording of the statute and
"persistently" should be used.
[Regina v Abrol; C. of A.; 24/1/1972.]
Marine Insurance
The Court of Appeal, the Master of the Rolls dissenting, dis-
approved of the long-established practice whereby defendant
insurers are not bound to give further and better particulars of
marine insurance for the loss of a ship when the insurers
allege that the ship was deliberately scuttled and that the
owners had procured or connived at it.
[Astroulanis Compania Neviere SA v Linard; Ch. Div.;
28/2/1972.]
Negligence
The House of Lords decided that a much criticised decision of
its own in 1929, that the only duty an occupier of land owed
to a trespasser, whether child or adult, was not to act with
reckless disregard of the trespasser's safety when he knew that
the trespasser was on his land, was out of date in modern
social conditions and should be overruled or modified.
[British Railways Board v Harrington; House of Lords;
16/2/1972.]
Planning
The House of Lords, in test cases, decided by a majority a
basis for assessing compensation for agricultural land compul-
sorily acquired for a public scheme which will have the
effect
of greatly increasing the compensation payable where the
scheme and planning permission for it have been approved
before the notice to treat is served on the owners of such land-
Lord Simon, in a strong dissenting judgment, considered
that the basis approved by the majority would perpetuate
valuation on an unreal basis and would augment injustice.
[Rugby Joint Water Board v Footit and Another; Same
v
Shaw-Fox and Others; 24/2/1972.]
Road Traffic Acts
See under
Crime;
Coombs v Kehoe; Q.B.D.; 8/2/1972-
Higgins v Bernard; C. of A.; 6/2/1972.
Tax
Ribena, a product manufactured by Beecham Foods Ltd., wa
s
held not to be a drug or medicine and therefore not exempt
from purchase tax.
[Customs and Excise Commissioners v Beecham Foods Ltd.;
House of Lords; 26/1/1972].
Trade Descriptions
Convictions for offences against the Trade Descriptions Act»
1968, should have been recorded against proprietors of a self-
service store who displayed bottles of Ribena priced at 5s 9»
with manufacturers' labels worded "The deposit on this bottle
is 4d refundable on return" but who exhibited a notice at the
check-out point reading "In the interest of hygiene we do not
accept the return of any empty bottles. No deposit is charged
by us at the time of purchase." Two purchasers were refused
a refund.
[Doble v David Greig Ltd.; Q.B.D.; 15/2/1972.]
Words and Phrases
.
See under
Crime;
"special reasons"; ex parte X and Y; C.
0
A.; 18/2/1972.
102