55 / 328
enforcing the collection of foreign revenue debts.
The application was accordingly refused.
Securedcreditor—orderfor sale ofsecurity—election (Eire}.
In Re MacEntee (1960) Ir. Jur. Rep. 55, the Bank
of Ireland, a secured creditor, on the same date as an
offer of composition was accepted by the creditors,
obtained an order for the sale of lands which con
stituted their security and a receiver was appointed.
About three months later the bank lodged a proof of
debt and having valued their security sought to
prove for the balance of their debt. Before the order
for sale was made the agent for the bank had stated
that the applicants relied upon their security. Budd J.
held that, despite this statement, the order for sale
and the appointment of the receiver, the bank had
not made an election and were entitled to value their
security arid to prove for the balance of the debt.
Perpetuities—whether contingent gift to charity or im
mediate gift n>ith designated modes of application subject to
conditionprecedent. (Can.).
In
Jewish Home For The Aged of British Columbia
v.
Toronto General Trusts Corporation
(1961) 28
D.L.R.
(id.}
48, the Supreme Court of Canada held that
while the rule against perpetuities will invalidate a
gift for charitable purposes which is contingent on
the happening of an event which may not happen
within the perpetuity period, the situation is different
where there is an immediate unconditional gift to
charity with a designation of certain particular
modes of application of the property to charitable
purposes;
if the particular mode of application is
subject to a condition precedent which may not be
satisfied within the perpetuity period, the charitable
trust will not fail if there is a general unconditional
intention
to devote the property to charitable
purposes because the cy-pres doctrine will be applied.
Winding up—•opposition by majority of creditors.
(IST.Z.).
In Re J.R.S. Garage (1961) N.Z.L.R. 632, the
New Zealand Supreme Court held that where a
great majority of the creditors of a company oppose
the winding up, then, even though it is established
that the company is unable to pay its debts, the court
should give effect to the wishes of the majority
unless the petitioning creditor can give some valid
reason why effect should not be given to those wishes.
Criminal "Law—handwriting—expert evidence required.
(Criminal Procedure Act,
1865 (28 e> 29
Vict. c. \
8),
s.
8.).
A jury should not be left on their own to decide
questions of disputed handwriting without the
assistance of expert evidence.
On an appeal against conviction in a case which
turned partly on whether a receipt produced by the
accused had been forged by him and in which,
though no handwriting expert was called by either
side, the deputy chairman of quarter sessions had
invited the jury to consider whether the receipt was
genuine and to compare it with accused's hand
writing, held that the proviso to s. 4 (i) of the
Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, should not be applied,
and quashed the conviction:
R. v.
Tilley,
105
S.J.
685;(1961) 3
A!/E.R. 406, C.C.A.
Criminal Law—identification of prisoner
—
photographs
shown before identification.
Though it is improper for a witness who is to be
called to identify the accused to be shown a picture
of him beforehand, it will not invalidate the trial if
no substantial miscarriage of justice results.
About three weeks before the trial a witness called
to identify the accused was shown a photograph of
him by the police. The matter was not mentioned in
the summing-up and the jury convicted.
Held,
that in all the circumstances the conviction should
not be quashed: R. v.
Seiga
(1961) 45
Cr. App.
R.
220,
C.C.A.
Obstruction ofadministration of justice—attempt. (S. A.).
In R.
v.
Watson; R.
v.
Halangiso, (1961) (2) S.A.
283, the High Court of Southern Rhodesia held that
if A, knowing that B had been involved in a collision,
and in order to obstruct or defeat the course of
justice and to prevent B from being dealt with
according to law, falsely informed the police that it
was he, A, who was driving the vehicle at the time
of the collision, A would be guilty of attempting to
defeat or obstruct the course of justice.
Criminal Law Trial—summing-up
—
degree of proof
—"reasonably sure".
It is a misdirection to tell a jury that they must be
"reasonably sure" that the accused is guilty before
they can convict.
A jury convicted the appellants of receiving after
the recorder had directed the jury that they must
be "reasonably sure" of the appellant's guilt in order
to convict. Held, on appeal, that the conviction must
be quashed :
R.
v.
Head ; R.
v.
Wattender (1961)
48 Cr.App.R. 225, C.C.A.
49