69 / 244
THE CALENDAR AND LAW
DIRECTORY, 1950
T
he
Calendar for 1950 has been on sale since
April 1 st, and may be obtained from the Society’s
offices, Price 7/6, post free, 8/2.
The Council regret that owing to difficulties in
the printing trade it was not possible to have the
Calendar published earlier. After satisfying orders
already received, there is a limited number of
copies available, and any member who has not
ordered a copy o f the Calendar should do so
immediately.
PROFESSIONAL ITEMS
Ethics o f Cross-examination
I
n
a case recently reported in the Times newspaper,
the Lord Chief Justice of England, in delivering
judgement, dismissing the appeal of a man against
his conviction at Liverpool Assizes, said that the
importance o f the case was that it appeared that the
appellant, through his counsel, had alleged that a
statement had been extorted from him by the police.
The police had denied that in cross-examination.
The allegation was a serious one, and a thing which
was too often said without foundation. The Court
desired to call attention to the fact that having
suggested that to the police in cross-examination,
and having made that allegation before the Jury,
counsel did not call upon his client to substantiate
what he had told him to say. It was one thing to
examine a witness as to credit, but quite another
thing to cross-examine him with no materia' to
support allegations against him. It was entirely
wrong to make suggestions, as in the present case,
that the police threatened to beat a man up unless
he made a confession, and then not to substantiate
them. The Court hoped that counsel would refrain
from making such charges if they have no eviderce
with which to substantiate them.
Time : pleading delivered after 5 p.m.
I
n
Kaye v. Levinson (66 T .L.R . 613). The plaintiff
cin an action applied for extension of time for
'delivering his statement of claim, and an order was
made that the action should stand dismissed unless
he statement o f claim was delivered on or before
28th November, 1949. The English Order, 64, Rule
11 (which is identical in terms with R.S.C. Order
64, Rule 13, except that the time named therein is
4 p.m., instead o f 5 p.m. as in this country) is as
follows :
“ Service o f pleadings, notices, summonses,
orders, rules and other proceedings, shall be
effected before the hour o f 4 in the afternoon,
except on Saturdays when it shall be effected
before the hour of 12 noon. Service effected
after 4 in the afternoon o f any week day except
Saturday, for for the purpose o f measuring any
period of time subsequent to such service, shall
be deemed to have been effected on the follow
ing day.”
The plaintiff’s solicitor, having obtained the exten
sion of time mentioned above, delivered a statement
of claim at the office o f the defendant’s solicitors at
5.45 p.m. on 28th November, 1949. The defendant
contended that the statement o f claim was delivered
out of time and, accordingly, that the action stood
dismissed under the order o f the Court. The argu
ment for this proposition was that when the judge
said “ delivery on November 28th,” he meant
“ delivery at such a time on that day as the rules
provide.” The plaintiff, on the other hand, con
tended that the dismissal of the action for want o f
prosecution was not one o f the proceedings specified
in Order 64, Rule 1 1 , and that, accordingly, a
statement o f claim delivered at any time on Novem
ber 28th was sufficient to safeguard the action from
being dismissed for want o f prosecution.
The
matter was tested by assuming that the action in
fact stood dismissed, and by appealing. The majority
of the Court of Appeal seemed to think that the
action did not, in fact, stand dismissed, as the
order o f the High Court was not sufficiently
explicit in this regard on the question o f time.
In the final result, the Court decided to assume
that the statement of claim had been delivered
out o f time, and to validate it by requesting an
extension o f time, but without costs.
Solicitor’s liability for aiding and abetting
client
T
he
modern client is naturally anxious to avoid the
multitude o f controls imposed by emergency legis
lation, not to mention income tax, stamp duties,
and other impositions which he has come to regard
as being o f a penal nature, The case of Johnson
v.
Youden & Anor. (66 T .L.R . 395), shows how easily
a solicitor may find himself in the position of aiding
and abetting an offence on the part o f the client. It
arose out o f Section 7 (1) o f the (English) Building
Materials and Housing Act, 1945, which makes
it an offence to offer a house for sale at a price in
excess of the permitted price. The builder, who was
convicted o f an offence under the Act, had instructed
a firm of solicitors in which there were three
partners to act for him in connection with the sale.
63