245 / 736
which resulted from the withdrawal of support
for the wall consequent on the excavation.
Dalton v Angus (1881) 6 A.C. 740 established
that
(1) every owner of
land was entitled as
against his neighbour to a right of support for his
land in its natural state and (2) that the owner of
land might also enjoy
a
right of support for his
buildings if acquired by grant or something equiv
alent in law to make it a burden on the neigh
bour's land. The plaintiff alleged infringement of
both rights and negligence. The defendants ad
mitted that prior to 1962 the plaintiff' had ac
quired an casement of support for the wall but
they contended that the plaintiff by superimposing
his shed on top of the wall increased the burden
on the defendant's land thereby extinguishing the
previously cx'sting easement of support. The onus
of pioving that the erection caused them prejudice
lay on the defendants and they failed to discharge
it. With regard to the right at (1) above the bur
den was on the plaintiff to show that in the absence
of the \vall the defendant's excavation would have
resulted
in such a substantial collapse of
the
natural soil as would constitute damage sufficient
to found the cause of action by itself. The fall of a
few grains of soil would not suffice and in this
case there was no substantial collapse and the
plaintiff would not succeed on
that ground.
Thirdly the weight of authority was against the
plaintiff's contention based on negligence, for in
the absence of an easement of support the owner
of land has a legal right to do what he likes with
his own land even if this resulted in the collapse
of his neighbour's building.
[Ray v Fairways' Motors
(Barnstaple) Ltd.
and Others, 112 S.J. 925].
Conveyancing, Conditional Agreement
The defendants executed a document in 1964
stating that they were "agreeable to the purchase"
of fifty-seven acres of the plaintiff's agricultural
land for a stated price subject to their obtaining
planning permission and to questions of title being
approved, the purchase to be completed within
e'glit weeks of
those conditions being satisfied.
The plaintiff signed a document which acknowl
edged receipt of £5 "in consideration of my
holding the property for you''.
It was held that despite the payment of £5 as
consideration, the document of 2nd April 1964
was not an option but a conditional contract. It
was an implied term of the contract that the
conditions be satisfied within a reasonable time
to be determined by the Judge by an objective
test applicable to both parties and as at the date
of the contract. The period t!-at had elapsed was
more than reasonable and the plaintiff was en
titled to treat the contract as at an end.
[re Langlands Farm and The Superior Develop
ments Ltd'. 1962 3 All E.R. 552].
Road Works, Contractors' Liability
The defendants were carrying out excavation work
in a residential street and the plaintiff was injured
when, at about 10.50 p.m. his car collided with an
obstruction left in the roadway by the defendants.
There was evidence that at 8.30 p.m. on the night
barriers had been placed round the obstruction
and warning lights were in position and the warn
ing lights \vere burning. When the accident oc
curred, there were no barriers in position or lights
burning. The defendant appealed against
the
decision that they were liable for the accident. It
was held that the district, being a quiet residential
one, the defendants had taken all reasonable pre
cautions—they were under no obligation to arrange
for the site to be inspected during the night. Their
appeal should be allowed.
[Lilley v The British Insulated Callenders Con
struction Go. Ltd.,
Tke Times,
12th November
1968].
Criminal Law
There is a strict rule that where a prisoner is
unrepresented at his tiial and calls no witness as
to fact other than himself the prosecutor is not
entitled to make a second speech to the jury. This
rule must be strictly followed.
In the present case this rule was broken and
the conviction was quashed on appeal.
[R. v Dorothy Rose Mondon, 52 Cr. App. R.
695].
Work and Labour, Fitness of Materials, Implied
Term
By an agreement made between builders and sub
contractors the latter agreed to roof certain houses,
the builders specifying a particular tile made by
only one manufacturer. The sub-contractors duly
obtained the tiles in the ordinary course of trade
and fixed them. Owing to faulty manufacture, the
particular tiles used had an undetcctable defect
wh'ch made them liable to break in frosty weather.
In a contract for the supply of work and mater
ials the work must be done with all proper skill
and care. The appellants maintained
that
the
warranty in respect of materials is similar to that
101