372 / 736
When considering different expressions of
judicial
views upon what was required before a contractual in
strument might be rectified by the court, their Lordships
held that while the law did not require a complete ante
cedent concluded agreement, some outward expression
of accord between the contracting parties was necessary.
Ct, of Appeal 19/12/69 Joscelyne v. Nessen.
Purchasers of carpet to be supplied and laid were held
not to be liable for the price of carpet delivered to
premises in bales which were subsequently stolen. Mr.
Justice Mocatta dismissed a claim by
the plaintiffs,
Philip Head & Sons Ltd., furniture retailers, of Egham,
Surrey, for £766, the balance of the price of goods sold
and delivered to the defendants. Showfronts Ltd., build
ing contractors, engaged in the reconstruction of show
rooms in Oxford Street, W.
His Lordship considered that the carpet had not been
unconditionally appropriated
to
the contractor
in a
deliverable state since it had not been laid.
Q.B.D. 20/11/69 Philip Head & Sons Ltd. v. Showfronts
Ltd.
Crime
A majority of the Court refused to order a blood test
of a child whose parenity was pisputed by its mother's
former husband because in a family photograph the
child appeared to be coloured. They decided that as the
evidence which a blood test would provide on the trial
of the paternity issue might show that the former hus
band was not the father, the test would not be in the
child's interests.
Ct. of Appeal W. v. W.
Pleas of guilty were made in a magistrates' court by a
solicitor on behalf of a defendant who was not asked
personally how he pleaded and was sentenced to four
years' imprisonment after being committed to quarter
sessions for sentence.
The Divisional Court quashed the convictions because
of an error in procedure under section 13(1) of the
Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, which provides that "on
summary trial of an information the court shall, if the
accused appears, state to him the substance of the in
formation and ask him whether he pleads guilty or not
guilty".
Ct. of Appeal Regina v. Wakefield Justices Ex Parte
Butterworth.
Police who stopped a man while he was driving home
late at night because they, in a following car, noticed
that his rear number plate was not illuminated, and who,
during a conversation about that and other matters not
connected with his driving, noticed that his breath smelt
of alcohol, had no right to require him to take a breath
test, for he was not at the time a "person driving or
attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road" within
section 2(1) of the Road Safety Act, 1967; and though,
after arguing his rights, he agreed to have a test, which
proved, positive, his subsequent arrest and conviction
for refusing to provide a specimen of blood or urine
was illegal.
Ct. of Appeal Pinner v. Everett.
Their Lordships held that a written request to identify
the driver of a vehicle, signed by a police inspector, was
a request "by or on behalf of" the Metropolitan Police
Commissioner within section 232(2)(a) of the Road
Traffic Ace, I960, because the commissioner had dele
gated his authority to a superintendent with an implied
authority for him to delegate it further to the inspector.
The Court allowed an appeal by
the prosecution
against the dismissal by Croydon justices last January of
an information against Alan Roe, that being the owner
of a motor vehicle, he refused to give information about
the driver.
Ct. of Appeal 22/10/69 Nelm v. Roe.
A police officer had no right to require a breath test
from a motorist who had driven off the road on to the
forecourt of lock-uup garages near his home after a
panda car had overtaken him on the road and signalled
him to stop a few moments earlier,
Ct. of Appeal 29/10/69 Trigg v. Griffin
A hatless constable was "in uniform" their Lordships
decided when dismissing an appeal by Ronald Wallwork,
a lorry driver, from his conviction by the Manchester
stipendiary magistrate of driving with an excess pro
portion of alcohol in his blood. The stipendiary found
that the constable, who required a breath test under
section 2 of the Road Safety Act, 1967, was "not wearing
any uniform headgear".
Ct. of Appeal 27 /
11/69
Wallwork v. Giles
Their Lordships dismissed a prosecutor's appeal and
upheld Rugeley justices' dismissal of a charge under the
Road Safety Act, 1967, against a man who supervised
his learner-driver wife when she was driving, although
he had a proportion of alcohol in his blood "substan
tially" in excess of the prescribed limit.
Ct. of Appeal 23/10/69 Sheldon v. Jones.
Under section 3(1) of the Road Safety Act, 1967,
the second breath test, the requirement for a specimen
for a laboratory test, and its provision must all take
place at the same police station.
Ct. of Appeal 12/10/69 Butler v. Easton
The general principle of admitting evidence of offen
ces other than the one charged to prove identity was
clearly laid down years ago and has never been expres
sed in a number of different phases in subsequent authori
ties.
Court of Appeal Regina v. Morris.
The parents of a girl aged 14 who was absent from
school without reasonable excuse for 12 out of a pos
sible 114 attendances were held Guilty of an offence
under Section 39(1) of the Education Act, 1944, as
amended, although they had no knowledge of her ab
sences. The Court held that the section created an
absolute offence and that such absence amounted to a
failure to attend school regularly within the meaning of
Section 36.
Ct. of Appeal 4/11/69 Crump v. Gilmore.
The Divisional Court held that where an accused
pleaded guilty before magistrates, was committed to
quarter sessions, for sentence and was sentenced, quarter
sessions had jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the ground
that a statement made by him to the police and which
formed part of the prosecution case before the magis
trates showed that the guilty plea was equivocal.
Ct. of Appeal 10/12/69 Regina v. Tottenham Magis
trates Ex Parte Rubens.
86