603 / 736
charging him with contravening Section
1
(1) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, in obtaining £25
from a buisnessman. An appeal to Glamorgan Quarter
Sessions was dismissed last November.
Section 1 (1) provides : "If any agent corruptly obtains
.
.
.
from any person
.
.
. and
.
.
.
consideration as an
inducement . . . for doing .
. . any act in relation to his
principal's affairs ... he shall be guilty .
. ."
[Morgan v Director of Public Prosecutions; Q.B.D.;
The Times,
20 October 1970.]
In the offence of dishonestly obtaining property by
deception, the element of dishonesty need only be proved,
in addition to the other ingredients, where the deception
was made recklessly as opposed to deliberately.
[Regina v Potger; Court of Appeal;
The Times,
20 October 1970.]
The conviction of a motorist for driving with excessive
blood-alcohol was quashed because the jury who con
victed him had not been directed that, if they accepted
the defence version of the events, he could not have
been driving at the time when police suspected him of
having alcohol in his body and required him to provide
a breath test specimen.
FRegina v Garforth; Court of Appeal;
The Times,
9 October 1970.]
Damages
Because a passenger whose brain was severely injured
in a car crash failed to prove that he was incapable of
managing his affairs in relation to the accident a month
after it happened, he did not succeed
in recovering
damages assessed at £19,000 on his claim against the
driver. Negligence was not disputed. The action was
begun a month outside the three years limitation period.
[Penrose v Mansfield; Q.B.D.;
The Times,
8 October
1970.]
When the court has a discretion to award interest to a
party to proceedings who has received full indemnity for
his loss from his insurers, it must look at the reality of
the matter and consider whether any such award could
be retained by the assured party or could be claimed by
the insurers by subrogation.
[H. Cousins and Co. v D. and E. Carriers Ltd.; Court
of Appeal;
The Times,
4 November 1970.]
Disciplinary Proceedings
Any suggestion that a pharmaceutical service com
mittee would be incapable of hearing a case against a
company of dispensing chemists because they had been
"pilloried" in an article in
The Sunday Times
about
drug substitution was abandoned when the court heard
an application for an order prohibiting the committee
from proceeding.
Their Lordships refused the application of Gordon D.
Conway Ltd., trading as Bright's Dispensing Chemists,
of Willesden. After adjourning
the
case
overnight
the court ordered
that
the
committee
should not
proceed
to
their
hearing
until
twenty-eight
days
after the applicants had been provided with agreed
further particulars of the case against them. The appli
cants were ordered to pay costs.
[Regina v Pharmaceutical Service Committee
ex parte
Gordon D. Conway Ltd.]
See under
Medical Practitioner,
Faridian v G.M.C.
Document—non est factum
The House of Lords
reviewed
the whole doctrine
involved in the plea of
non est factum,
namely, the
circumstances in which a person who has signed a docu
ment in the belief that it is one having a different effect
can say that the document is a nullity.
[Saunders
(formerly Gallia)
v Anglia Building
Society; House of Lords;
The Times,
8 November 1970.]
Family
The courts should not dictate to a parent having
custody of the children of a dissolved marriage what his
future life should be. Therefore, where the parent's desire
to emigrate to Australia does not conflict with the wel
fare of the children he should have the same right to
emigrate as everybody else.
[T v T; Court of Appeal;
The Times, 4
November
1970.]
A husband who was joint owner with his wife of the
matrimonial home and who deserted her was held not to
be entitled to an order against the wife under Section 30
of the Law of Property Act, 1925, unless he provided
alternative accommodation for her.
Section 30 provides that if the trustees for sale refuse
to sell or to exercise any of their powers or if any
requisite consent cannot be obtained any person interested
may apply to the court for a vesting or other order for
giving effect to the proposed transaction or for an order
directing the trustees for sale to give effect to it, and
the court may make such order as it thinks fit.
[In re
Hardy's Trust; Sutherst v Sutherst; Ch. Div.;
The Times,
23 October 1970.]
Persistent dishonesty by a wife which causes her
husband acute embarrassment and anxiety is cruelty.
[Stanwick v Stanwick; Court of Appeal;
The Times,
24 October 1970.]
The test of whether a mother is unreasonably with
holding consent
to
the adoption of her child
is an
objective one, namely, what a reasonable mother would
do in all the circumstances of the case. One factor to
be considered by the reasonable mother is the child's
future welfare. Unreasonableness does not involve any
misconduct or blameworthiness on the mother's part.
The court, in reserved judgments, refused to follow
dicta
that to establish unreasonableness on the mother's
part there must be some element of culpability on her
part.
\In re
B (an infant); Court of Appeal,
The Times,
4 October 1970.]
See under
Matrimonial,
Meyer v Meyer.
145