32 / 328
required by themselves or their clients will consider
offering them to the P.R.O. for permanent preserva–
tion. Not only testamentary documents are of value;
copies of legal documents obtained from the P.R.O.
before 1922 are of particular interest, as also are
rentals of any date earlier than about 1870, deeds not
registered in the Registry of Deeds, and almost any
original legal documents of pre-i9th century date.
Yours faithfully,
MARGARET C. GRIFFITH
Deputy Keeper.
CUIRT BHREITHIUNAIS
CHUARDA
(Circuit Court of Justice)
Dublin Circuit.
County of the City of Dublin.
Pursuant to Order 10, Rule 3 of the Rules of the
Circuit Court 1950, as amended by the Circuit Court
Rules 1954, I, the Circuit Judge assigned to this
Circuit, being satisfied that service (in accordance
with Rule 4 of Order 10 of the said 1950 Rules) of
Civil Bills and other Originating Documents of the
Circuit Court by a duly appointed Summons Server
is not practicable in the Summons Server's area of
Balbriggan in this Circuit, do hereby direct that for
the period of three months from this date, or until
the post of Summons Server in that area has been
filled, whichever event shall first happen, service of
any such Civil Bills or other Originating Documents
in said area may be effected by a duly appointed
Summons Server to another area in said Circuit, by
registered post.
Dated this izth day of July, 1961.
T. C. CONROY
(Copy).
Circuit judge.
DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL
INTEREST
Evidence
admissibility—other offences.
(Scot) (Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 s.l. (f) (ii).)
H.M. Advocate
v.
Deighan (1961), 77 "Sh. Ct. Rep.
2.6,
the Sheriff Court of Midlothian held that the
prosecutor could not cross-examine the accused as to
his own previous character, although he had
attacked the character of prosecution witnesses,
because the defence attack was essential to the nature
of the defence.
Criminal Law—Summing up of Trial.
In R.
v.
Milne (1961) Crim. L.R. 323, the accused
had been convicted of driving a car whilst under the
influence of drink. The Court of Criminal Appeal
held
that, as nowhere in the summing-up was it said
that the burden of proof was on the prosecution, the
appeal would be allowed.
Restraint of Trade—Public Policy (Singapore).
In Thomas Cowan & Co.
v.
Orme (1960) 27
Malayan L.J. 41,
the defendant entered into a
contract of service with the plaintiffs who were
carrying on business as pest exterminators and
fumigators. He covenanted that he would not carry
on business on Singapore Island for three years
after leaving the employment. He left and broke the
covenant.
The Singapore High Court
held
that
although the covenant was reasonably necessary for
the protection of the plaintiff's business it was
against public policy since to prevent the defendant
from operating as a fumigator in Singapore would
give the plaintiffs a, virtual monopoly.
Indemnity—guarantee distinguished.
The father of an infant hirer under a hire-purchase
contract which was void under the Infants Relief
Act, 1874, signed a "Hire-Purchase Indemnity and
Undertaking" whereby he agreed with the hire-
purchase company "to indemnify you against any
loss resulting from or arising out of the agreement
and to pay to you the amount of such loss on demand
and whether or not at the time of demand you shall
have exercised all or any of your remedies in respect
of the hirer or the chattels but so that on payment in
full by me of my liabilities hereunder I shall obtain
such of your rights as you may at your discretion
assign to me." The infant defaulted and the father
defended a claim against him by the company on
the ground that his agreement was a guarantee of
an illegal contract and as such unenforceable.
Held,
that the undertaking was on its true construction an
indemnity and so enforceable: Yeoman Credit
v.
Latter (1961) iW.L.R. 828 (1961) za n E.R. 294,
C.A.
Hire-Purchase
-
Exception clause—fundamental breach—
series of lesser breaches.
It is an implied condition of a contract of hire
(and so also of a contract of hire-purchase) that the
goods hired are reasonably fit for the purpose for
which they are hired, except where the defect is
patent and the hirer did not rely on the owner's
skill and judgment. The owner cannot escape from
a fundamental breach of that condition by an
exception clause excluding all conditions whether
that breach consists in one major defect or an
accumulation of minor defects.