287 / 736
if they were at home. Such a visitor should not
have more than a very limited number of children
to look after.
We are greatly concerned that there appears to
be no provision whatsoever for non-Catholic
children in the State, whether they are delinquents
or destitute children deprived of their homes. This
is completely unconstitutional and utterly unjust.
If there were only one such child it is an inescap
able obligation of the State to make precisely the
same provision for that child as they would for a
child of any other faith. It is accepted that there
may be very few children of the Protestant faith
or of the Jewish faith but it is believed that the
statistics available are not reliable in as much as no
committals are made of such children because
there is no place for them to go. If there were a
place for them to go undoubtedly many more cases
would come to light. In any case the number of
cases
is
quite
beside
the point. Under
the
Constitution and in justice equal provision must
be made for all and this is a matter of the utmost
urgency.
The members of the Sub-Committee are John
B. Jermyn, Patrick Noonan, W. A. Osborne.
CASES OF THE MONTH
Liability for Animals.
P and E brought their dog into licensed premises.
The dog which was normally quiet was
lying
alongside or under the stool of either G or E for
most of the evening but wandered round the
premises on two or three occasions without the
knowledge of G or E, returning to the stool. When
leaving the premises the plaintiff tripped over the
dog and
sustained
injuries. Proceedings were
issued against G and E and also the owner of the
licensed premises.
It was held that the Licencee was not negligent
there being no general principle that dogs ought
not to be allowed into licenced premises or that
dogs should be required to be on a lead. The
position might be different where the licencee had
reason to believe that the dog might be a nuisance
of itself, or might behave in such a way that it
could lead to an accident. In regard to G and E
there is a principle that if a person brings a dog
into any confined space there is a duty to take
reasonable care that persons are not injured by
the dogs conduct (see Andrews v Patullo, The
Times
16th December,
1955).
The
liability
depends on whether or not there is a duty on the
person bringing the dog into a Public House to
keep aconstant eye on the dog: in this case there
was no reason to believe that the dog would wan
der and there was no evidence that the dog had a
tendancy
to get
into mischief. The plaintiff's
claim failed as he had not proved the conduct of
G and E fell short of the required standard, i.e.
that they did not take reasonable care for the
safety of others.
Carroll v Garford and ors. 112 S.J. 244.
Contract, subject to Planning Permission
A contract was entered into "conditional upon
planning consent being granted
by
the
local
authority, following upon the application already
lodged, for use of the subjects of sale as a Hotel
and if such consent is not granted the purchaser
will
be entitled
to
resile from
the contract".
Planning consent was granted subject to conditions
(l)that before any alterations are commenced
approval of the Council should be obtained (i.e.
as Building Authority). (2) that the private access
onto the public road bs improved together with
the provision of adequate visability splay to east
of the access. To comply with the first condition
would involve considerable expense. The expense
involved in complying with the second condition
was negligable. The Vendor sued for speciec
performance of the Contract.
It was held that the condition that Planning
consent be granted had been satisfied and that the
conditions imposed by the local authority as the
building authority as opposed to those imposed
in their capacity of Planning Authority had noth
ing to do with the Vendor. The conditions as to
access and visibility were very small and did not
affect the matter.
.Richard West & Partners (Inverness) Ltd., and
Anor. v Dick. 1969 f All. E.R. 943.
Estate Agent, Payment of Deposit
An Estate Agent arranged
the sale of
land
"Subject to Contract" and accepted a deposit
from the Purchaser on that basis. No contract was
ever entered
into and subsequently
the Agent
became insolvent. The Purchaser sued the Vendor
for the amount of the Deposit and it was held that
the vendor was liable to repay the deposit to the
Purchaser since the deposit had been accepted by
the Agent as agent for the Vendor. It was remarked
obiter that even if the Agent had been regarded as
a stakeholder the risk of his involvency would
still fall on the Vendor.
Coding v Frazer (1967) 1
W.L.R. 286.
Estate Agent, Commission.
The Plaintiff, an Estate Agent, undertook to sell
a grocer's business for the defendant on terms
11