148 / 736
There is abundant authority for the view that tin-
Court had jurisdiction
to grant relief notwith
standing the fact that the decree might only be
recognised in the country where it was granted
and might not be binding on the Courts of the
petitioner's residence and domicile.
[Magnier v Magnier; S.J., Vol. 112, No. 12, p.
233].
Solicitor: Continuous practice
The plaintiff was a solicitor who had com
menced practice in 1960. On four occasions in the
years 1961-66 he was late in taking out his practis
ing certificate. On these occasions a certificate was
not issued to him until after the 15the December in
the relevant year and was therefore not retrospec
tive to the date of expiration which was 16th Nov
ember of the previous year. The plaintiff wished to
take an articled clerk but registration was refused
on the grounds that he had not been in continuous
practice for a period of five years as required by
Section 41
(1) Solicitors Act, 1957. It was held
that the plaintiff's practising certificate had been
issued after 15th December and in the years in
question he had for a short period not been quali
fied lawfully to act as a solicitor and therefore had
not been in practice for a continuous period of
five years.
[Adlani v Law Society; 1968,
1
WLR 6,
1
AER 17].
Receiving stolen goods, explanation
Accused charged with larceny and receiving a
Volkswagen car in Co. Galway. Direction on lar
ceny charge but accused convicted of receiving
and sentenced to twelve months imprisonment—
Court of Criminal Appeal allowed appeal
in
March 1967 and gave reasons in May 1967. The
car was taken from Messrs Linders at night and
consequently stolen—the Court did not decide
whether admissibility of registration book was es
sential. Circuit Court Judge Durcan misdirected
the jury by stating that if they considered that
the explanation given by the accused might not
reasonably be true this meant that the state had
proved its case. The jury should have been told
that if they thought that his explanation might
reasonably be true, even if not convinced of its
truth
they should acquit
the accused—appeal
allowed, new trial directed.
[People (Attorney General) v James Melody].
Order of Witnesses
The applicant was charged with driving a motor
vehicle whilst unfit to drive through drink or
drugs. At the trial her counsel sought to call on
the defence witnesses to give evidence before the
applicant; the deputy chairman ruled that she
should give evidence first. She was convicted.
On an application for leave to appeal, on the
ground that the deputy chairman had erred in
law in refusing to allow the defence counsel to
call his witnesses in the sequence he chose and
insisting that the accused give her evidence first—
held, dismissing the application that it was the
general practice, with rare exceptions, that an
accused person who was to give evidence should
be called before other defence witnesses; and that
the general practice was correct and should be
followed.
Dicta of Lord Alverstone, C.J., in Rex v Stinie
Morrison
(1911) 6 CR. App. Rep.
159,
165,
C.C.A. applied.
[Regina v Smith
(Joan), Court ol Appeal
(1968) 1 W.L.R. p. 636. (1968) 2 All E.R. 115].
Excessive user of easement
By conveyance dated October 1961
the then
owner of a large agricultural estate conveyed part
of it to the plaintiff, a farmer, together with "the
right of way at all times and for all purposes
over the driveway .
.
.
leading to the main road, in
common with all other persons having the right".
In June 1966 the plaintiff obtained planning per
mission to use part of his land as a tourist cara
van and camping site for up to 200 caravans and/
or tents from 1st April to 31st October in each
year, with the condition that no caravan should
remain on the site for more than three weeks.
The permission was granted on the basis that the
right of way would be used for access to, and
egress from the main road between two Cornish
tourist centres.
Access to the drive, which was bordered by
trees, was through entrance gates ten feet apart.
It was widened out to about fifteen feet in the
first stretch of 180 yards, which was also used and
owned by two neighbouring landowners, one of
whom used it for farm vehicles. They objected to
the proposed user for caravan traffic and put up
notices warning campers off. The plaintiff brought
an action, claiming against them, inter alia, that
the grant by its terms permitted the proposed user,
and requiring the notices
to be removed. Tin-
defendant users counterclaimed for an injunction
in quia timet terms to restrain the user of 200
units on the ground, inter alia, that it would be
• excessive and a nuisance. At the trial evidence
was given about the probable user by occupants
of 200 camping un : ts. The county court judge
held that the plaintiff had established his right
to the proposed user and refused the injunction.