136 / 294
CURRENT L AW DIGEST SELECTED
In reading these cases note should be taken of the
differences in English and Irish Statute Law
Company
Megarry J. held that the Court has jurisdiction to make a
winding-up order in the case of an unregistered company for
the purposes of Part IX of the Companies Act, 1948, if there
are assets within the jurisdiction to administer and persons
concerned or interested in their proper distribution who are
subject to the jurisdiction.
[In re Compania Merabello San Nicholas SA; Ch. Div.;
21/3/1972.]
Conflict of Laws
The art world is so international today that it is not oppres-
sive of a world-renowned art dealer living in France to have
an action against him tried in England where the main issue is
whether a painting of a female allegorical figure called
La
Poesie
is or is not the authentic work of Francois Boucher,
the eighteenth-century French painter.
[Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein; C.A.; 10/3/1972.]
Counsel's Undertaking
Counsel can give undertakings for their clients only when they
have received express authority, Watkins J. said when setting
aside, on the application of a wife, orders he had made relating
to maintenance for her and her two children on the ground
that her counsel at the hearing had not been authorised to
give certain undertakings on her behalf.
[Marsden v Marsden; Family Div.; 21/3/1972.]
Defamation
Where there is uncertainty whether the defence of absolute
privilege attaches to statements made at an investigation of a
complaint against a police officer under the Police Act, 1964,
and whether the occasion is absolutely privileged, that ques-
tion should not be tried in advance as a preliminary issue of
law but should be decided at the trial of the action itself.
[Constable v Jegger; C.A.; 16/3/1972.]
Crime
A man who spent over 70 days in custody on remand for
charges of which he was eventually acquitted must serve a
prison sentence under a default warrant issued nine days
after he had been taken into custody but not executed until
after his acquittal.
,
[Regina v Leeds Prison Governor ex parte Huntley; QBD;
Div. Ct.; 28/3/1972.]
See under
Licensing;
Howker v Robinson; QBD; 21/3/1972.
When the prosecution wish to use tape recordings in evidence
against a defendant who objects that they ought to be
excluded unless they are shown to be originals in accordance
with the best evidence rule, the trial judge has to decide
whether the prosecution makes out a prima facie case of orig-
inality. He does not have to hear and weigh other evidence
which might controvert the prima facie case, and if he were to
do so he might be trespassing on the ultimate function of the
jury.
[Regina v Robson; Regina v Harris; Central Criminal
Court; Shaw J.; (1972) 116 S.J. 313.]
The prosecution must take all reasonable steps to secure the
a
ttendance of any of their witnesses who are not the subject of.
a
conditional witness order or whom the
>
defence might reason-
ably expect to be present. If, however, it proves impossible^ to
have the witnesses present, the court may in its discretion
Permit the trial to proceed provided that no injustice is done.
[Regna v Shaw; Regina v Cavanagh; C.A.; 9/3/1972.]
No rule of law precludes the amendment of an indictment
af
ter arraignment, whether by adding a new count or other-
Wise, but an amendment during trial is likely to prejudice the
a
ccused person and the longer the interval between arraign-
ment and amendment the more likely is it that injustice will
he caused. In every case in which amendment is sought the
court must consider with great care whether the accused will
be prejudiced.
[Regina v Johel; Regina v Rem; C.A.; 3/3/1972.]
The Home Secretary has power under Section 29 (1) of the
Criminal Justice Act, 1961, to direct that a person serving a
prison sentence who wishes to conduct private litigation shall
be taken to and from the court under escort but to require the
prisoner to pay in advance or undertake to pay the estimated
costs of producing him to the court and bringing him back to
prison. Where the prisoner has the means to pay, the costs
should not come out of public funds.
[Becker v The Home Office; C.A.; 6/3/1972.]
A real intention to buy furniture cannot be changed into an
intention to buy carrots merely by describing the articles sold
as carrots and the furniture as free gifts in a device to avoid
the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act, 1950.
Their Lordships so held when allowing a prosecutor's appeal
in a test case from Matlock justices' dismissal of five infor-
mations against Herbert Hardy and four other persons for
opening a shop known as Direct Furnishing Supplies for the
serving of customers on a Sunday last July, contrary to Section
47 of the Act. Section 47 prohibits Sunday opening subject to
a proviso which enables articles including vegetables to be
sold on Sundays.
[Weller v Hardy; QBD; 14/3/1972.]
A court trying a criminal case has a discretion to allow the
prosecution to call fresh evidence after the close of its case
and after some defence witnesses have been called. Such fresh
evidence is not limited to evidence of a strictly rebutting
character.
[Regina v Doran; C.A.; 16/3/1972.]
Discretionary Trust
Their Lordships dismissed an appeal by the executors of Mr.
B Baden (the settlor) from the decision of Mr. Justice Bright-
man (
The Times
, 26 May 1971; [1971] 3 WLR, 475) that
a discretionary trust established by the settlor was not void
for uncertainty. Clause 9 (a) of the trust deed directed the
trustees "to apply the net income of the fund in making at
their absolute discretion grants to or for the benefit of any of
the officers and employees or ex-officers or ex-employees of
Mathew Hall & Co. Ltd. or to any relatives or dependants
of any such persons".
[In re Baden's Deed Trusts; C.A.; 27/3/1972.]
Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
See under
Time;
Vaughan v F. Parnham Ltd.; C.A.; 28/3/72.
Evidence
See under
Crime;
Regina v Doran; 16/3/72.
Family
Where a spouse decides not to contest a divorce and then
changes his mind after the time for service of an answer has
expired, he must file an affidavit of merits showing his sincerity
and that he is not seeking leave to defend as a tactical
manoeuvre.
[Spill v Spill; C.A.; 24/3/1972.]
See under
Successions;
Millward v Sherton and Another; Ch.
Div.; 24/3/1972.
Their Lordships quashed a declaratory judgment as to the
maximum discount figure which should be applied to reduce
a wife's maintenance because of her past conduct, saying that
it was neither permissible nor desirable.
The court allowed an appeal by Mrs. M. Ackerman,
Stevenage, from an order made by Sir G. Baker, now Presi-
dent of the Family Division, last July ([1971] 3 WLR 725)
for the payment by her former husband, Mr. D. J. Ackerman,
Stevenage, of £ 3 a week maintenance, after the declaratory
judgment in which he fixed the maximum discount figure at
25 per cent.
[Ackerman v Ackerman; C.A.; 6/3/1972.]
135