24 / 196
gave birth to premature twins seven months old on
23rd December 1962. Both parties had lived in Cork
city to the time of the birth, but then went to live with
the wife's parents in Go. Cork, but in separate rooms.
As the wife did not appear at the trial, O'Keeffe P.
held that this marriage was induced by fraud and fear,
and that the marriage had not been consummated. In
accordance with the principle enunciated in
Griffith v
Griffith
(1944) IR 35, the wife was given fourteen days
to make an application to maintain the marriage bond,
failing which a decree of nullity would be pronounced.
[Kelly v Kelly; unreported; O'Keeffe C.; 16th Feb.
1971.]
Negligence
Shipping collision in Killybegs Harbour in February
1966. The Harbour Master, being an official of the
Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, directed the
plaintiff, the master of the "Ardent", to move from the
West side to the East side of Killybegs pier. As the tide
was low, the "Ardent" could not see that the "Ramona"
owned by the first two defendants was approaching: it
was the duty of the Harbour Master to warn the
"Ardent" which he did not do; the consequent collision
between the "Ardent" and the "Ramona" was inevit-
able, and was entirely due to the negligence of the
Harbour Master. Consequently agreed damages for the
collision" were assessed against the Minister for £1,264
and costs, and the Minister will have to pay the fees of
the nautical assessor who sat with the Judge.
[Orpen v Jan and Cornelius Van der Schoot and
the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries; Kenny J.;
unreported; 22nd June 1970.]
Practice
Previous directions necessary for technological equip-
ment. Plaintiff alleges that he was libelled in a tele-
vision programme about moneylending on the "Seven
Days" programme on 11th November 1969. The ques-
tion arose at what stage of the proceedings should the
videotape of this television film be shown to the jury.
Murnaghan J. stated that he would have to approve in
advance of the technical arrangements for the television
performance, and that an application for directions
should be made beforehand to him. If approval was
given to the technical arrangements, Murnaghan J.
held that this television transmission should be shown
to the jury at the end of the plaintiff's evidence.
Per Murnaghan J.
—I take this opportunity of stating
my opinion that, if, in this technological age, a party
to an action should consider it necessary that, as part
of his case, a physical demonstration should be given by
any apparatus whether in court or otherwise, an inter-
locutory application should be brought seeking the
approval of the court to such a demonstration. The
Rules of the Superior Courts do not specifically deal
with matters of this kind, consequently, in the absence
of a specific rule, it is a matter for the Court to lay down
its own procedure.
[O'Brien v Radio Telefis Eireann; Murnaghan J.;
unreported; 10th February 1971.]
Trade Unions
Becton-Dickinson v Lee (No. 1)
was a dispute as to
recognition between unions, which caused a strike in
plaintiff's hypodermic syringe factory in Dun Laogh-
aire. It will be recalled that the plaintiffs had an agree-
ment with ITGWU and N.E.E.T.U. by which they
agreed only to recognise those unions (see
Gazette,
1970, 200). Five former members, who belonged to
AEF, refused to join other unions, and the company
refused to recognise AEF. Finally, in July 1970, AEF
members went on strike, and an interim injunction was
obtained. But Pringle J. refused to grant an interlocu-
tory injunction in August 1970 : an appeal was made
to the Supreme Court on 7th September and no order
was made on the footing that the pickets would be
discontinued; for three weeks, before this appeal came
on, the company suffered much loss, as many workers
refused to pass the AEF picket, which did not concern
them.
It must now be determined whether there was a
lawful "trade dispute", or whether there was unlawful
watching and besetting. There was no attempt by the
company to coerce the defendants to give up their
membership of AEF and to join another union; the
company merely adopted a
laissez-faire
attitude. There
is no doubt but that the original offer of employment
was conditional to their becoming members of NEETU,
and that they had agreed to this. If the employer is to
abide by his agreement with the shop union, he cannot
recognise an outside union. There is little doubt from
the definition of "trade dispute" in the Trade Disputes
Act, 1906, that there was no dispute between the com-
pany and AEF. The requirement by the company that
beforehand the workers should join a particular trade
union cannot create a trade dispute subsequently, if
they do not do so. The company cannot be forced to
break an agreement with a shop union to placate the
defendants. It is therefore clear that a recognition dis-
pute is not a trade dispute.
[Becton-Dickinson v Lee (No. 2); McLoughlin J.;
unreported; 14th December 1970.]
BOOK REVIEWS
Revenue Law by Barry Pinson, LL.B.; London, Sweet
and Maxwell, 1970; £2.90.
This is the fourth edition of a book, first published in
1962, but a considerable amount of the text has been
rearranged in the present edition to conform with
recent tax legislation in England. The author states that
his main object is to set out "the principles of revenue
law in as reasonable and intelligible a form as the sub-
ject matter allows". In this he has admirably succeeded.
The author also expresses the view, the book will be
of value to practising lawyers or accountants, not expert
in the revenue field who wish to. acquire a sufficient
working knowledge of taxation to sense where a prob-
lem exists. There are, unfortunately, many people, who
fail to "sense when a problem exists". Many fail to do
so, apparently having never heard of taxable emolu-
ments (so admirably dealt with in chapter three of this
work) until faced with a query from an inspector of
taxes. Others fail to sense the existence of a problem
until receipt of a demand for an account from the
estate duty office, apparently never having learned of
the liability to estate duty on gifts
inter vivos
nor that
a succession duty remains as a charge on lands sold
long after a death, which may be payable by a subse-
quent purchaser whose advisers did not "sense when a
problem exists". The study of this work alone should
indicate when and how a revenue problem may arise
in connection with conveyancing, the drafting of wills,
contracts of employment and many of the non revenue
matters which form a large part of the legal practi-
tioners everyday business.
To the lawyer who knows something about revenue
law, the book should also prove helpful. The index sets
out clearly the matter with which each chapter deals.
23