718 / 736
of impeding the apprehension or prosecution of the
thief, the Court said.
[Regina v. Brindley. Regina v. Long. Court of Appeal.
The Times,
24 February, 1971.]
When
dismissing
an appeal by Surenda Kumar
Sakhuja, aged 35, of Hove, against conviction at East
Sussex Quarter Sessions of driving with a proportion of
alcohol in his blood exceeding
the prescribed limit,
contrary to section 1(1) of the Road Safety Act, 1967,
the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Fenton Atkinson, Mr.
Justice Lyell and Mr. Justice Mars-Jones) granted a
certificate that a point of law of general public import
ance was involved in the decision.
The point was whether, on the true construction of
section 2(1) of the Act, in cases where a suspicion arises
with respect to a person driving while his vehicle is in
motion, that person, if immediately pursued by a con
stable in uniform, may be required to provide a speci
men of breath for a breath test, notwithstanding that
at the conclusion of the pursuit he is no longer a person
driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road
or other public place.
[Court of Appeal.
The Times,1)
March, 1971.]
Car dealers who sold a used car with a false number
of miles shown on the milage indicator could not avail
themselves of the statutory defence to a charge under the
Trade Descriptions Ate, 1968 — that the falsity was due
to the act or default of another person — because they
had made no record of the milage when they bought
the car and had made no inquiries about the milage from
previous owners.
[Richmond upon Thames, Borough Council v. Motor
Sales (Hounslow) Ltd. Q.B.D.
The Times,
10 February,
1971.]
When giving judgment dismissing an appeal against
conviction for causing death by dangerous driving con
trary to section 1(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, the
Lord Chief Justice said that, so long as the dangerous
driving was a cause of the accident and something more
than de minimis, the statute operated. Nothing in the
statute required the manner of driving to be a sub
stantial or major cause of accident. "Substantial" was
a convenient word to use to indicate to a jury that it
must be something more than de minimis.
[Regina v. Harrigon. Court of Appeal.
The Times,
26 February, 1971.]
Death Duties
The Honourable Arthur Guinness executed two settle
ments
in October 1929 by which
the settlor, Lady
Oranmore and Browne, would have become entitled to
one third of the trust fund if she were alive in October
1954. At that time, in 1954, the settlor made a settle
ment by which she assigned and transferred to named
trustees one half of the funds to which she would have
been entitled under the 1929 settlement, therein after
calling the Trust Fund, to hold upon the trusts therein
specified —
(a) To pay the stamp duty and costs of the deed.
(b) To pay the income towards the education and
benefit of minors.
(c) To pay £50,000 to each of the children of the
settlor, Gay Kindersley (24), Garech Browne (15), and
Tara Browne (9) who shall have married before then or
before the age of 30.
(d) To pay one half of the Trust Fund to such of
the children as shall attain 30 in equal shares, the re
maining half of the Trust Fund to be paid to such of
the children as shall attain 40. If any such children
should die before attaining the ages of 30 or 40 leaving
issue, such grandchildren shall be entitled
to
their
proper share at 21 years of age. There was a clause
which permitted the Trustees to appropriate any interest
or share which the Trustee deem reasonable. Another
clause gave power to the Trustees to receive remuner
ation. Yet another clause (18) provided that all estate,
succession or other duties which may be payable on the
death of any person in respect of the Trust Fund or his
or her interest therein shall be payable out of the
capital of the Trust Fund.
On 11 October 1954, the Trustees divided the settle
ment of October 1954 into six equal parts and approp
riated these in satisfaction of the shares of the Trust
Fund to which each of the 3 children would become
entitled when the attained the ages of 30 years or 40
years respectively. Gay Kindersley married in 1956 and
was paid £50,000. On attaining 30 years on June 2, 1960,
a one sixth share was duly transferred to him. When
Tara Browne married, he was also paid £50,000. In
December 1966, Tara was killed in a motor accident,
when he was 21; he left a widow and two sons. The
Irish Revenue have claimed large sums for estate and
succession duty.
It was claimed that all these death duties should be
discharged out of the total amount of capital held by
Trustees in December 1966, and not solely out of the
two one-sixth share apropriated to Tara's interest in
1954. It was also claimed that the appropriation of 1954
had the effect of creating six separate trust funds.
Kenny J. held that Clause 18 meant that any death
duties on the death of any person payable out of the
Trust Fund was to be paid out of capital only and not
out of income. Therefore the whole Trust Fund is not
liable for death duties but only Tara's one sixth shares
duly appropriated. The costs of the summons are to be
borne as to one third by each of the children equally.
[Royal Trust Company (Ireland) Ltd. v. Gay Kinder
sley and Others. Kenny J. Unreported. 15 January 1971.]
Family
[See under Affiliation. Regina v. Gravesend. Justices.]
Gaming and Lotteries
[See under Club Tehrari and Another v Roston.
Q.B.D.
The Times,
18 February, 1971.]
Guardianship of Infants
Application in respect of the custody of three children
in a case where the parents were separated. The majority
of the Supreme Court (O'Dalaigh C. J., Walsh and
McLoughlin J. J.) affirmed Kenny J. in granting custody
of the eldest boy of 10, and the girl of 9 to the father,
while granting custody of the youngest -boy of 7 to the
256