78 / 324
make a full statement of all his grounds and reasons
in order to enable an aggrieved party to ascertain
what matters he had taken into account.
Per Sachs J.:—" It should be emphasised that
the duty of a taxing officer when answering an
objection is to make a full statement of all his
' grounds and reasons' in relation to the objection, a
duty which may well, as in the present case, entail
stating specifically whether or not the matter
complained of was taken into account."
(Eaves v.
Eaves and Powell—
(1955) j.
All
E.R. 849.)
Convicted defendant who wins appeal may be awarded
costs in the Court below.
The appellants were prosecuted under the Food
and Drugs Acts for selling food unfit for human
consumption, because a loaf contained a piece
of string.
At the hearing, the justices refused
to adjourn the case, although told that" the same
point was under appeal in another case, and fined
appellants £5.
On appeal, the Divisional Court
(Lord Goddard, C. J., Ormerod and Barry, J. J.),
held that, as the bread was not unfit for human
consumption, the appellants were wrongly convicted.
In quashing the conviction, this Court held that it
had power to order that the costs incurred by the
appellants before the justices should be allowed to
them.
In the circumstances, an order would be
made
that
the appellants
recover against
the
prosecutor the sum of 7 guineas costs.
Per Lord Goddard C. J. :—" It does not follow
that in every case in which the court sets aside the
conviction we should give the successful appellant
the costs, but there are two reasons why we think
we can give costs in this case. One is, that we think
that these prosecutions ought to be launched with
much greater care. People ought not to be charged
under a section creating a very serious offence when
the information ought to have been preferred under
another section concerned with the far less serious
offence. The other point is, that when this case was
coming on before the justices, it was known that
Miller's case was under appeal to this court, although
it had not actually been entered. Application had
been made for a case to be stated, which had been
granted, though the case,was not actually set down
in the list. I do not know that that is always a good
reason
for granting an adjournment, because
justices might think in some cases it was desirable
to get the case on quickly ;
but I think it would
have been a very good thing in the present case if
some further adjournment had been granted in
order to find out what was the state of affairs with
.regard to Miller's case.
" We think, therefore, that in the present case
we should say that the defendants in the court
below ought to have something for costs."
(Turner
& Sons v. Owen
—-(1955), 3 IF.L.R., 700.)
REVIEW.
Glanville Williams
—
The Proof of Guilt—London,
Stevens,
1955,
pp.
294,
ij/6d.
We are once more indebted to Professor Glanville
Williams for having given us a clear, accurate and
concise picture of a study of the English Criminal
trial under the title " The Proof of Guilt " in
lectures which
he
delivered
at Birmingham
University in October, 1955.
The compass of
this short and yet exhaustive treatise published
under the auspices of the Hamlyn Trust embraces
the whole field of criminal practice. The learned
author treats of such interesting problems as the
evolution of the English trial ;
the appointment
and training of judges ;
the questioning by judges
of witnesses ;
the right of the accused not to be
questioned ; mistaken evidence by identification or
by experts ;
the admissibility of the evidence and
the rule for corroboration of accomplices and
children ;
the prosecution's burden
to prove
guilt ;
the quantum of proof ;
the hearsay rule in
criminal cases ;
the value of confessions and the
exclusion of character and convictions ;
circum
stantial evidence of similar facts ;
character and
convictions as evidence for the defence ;
the trial
together of different defendants ;
the jury as a
check on unpopular laws ;
arguments for and
against the jury system ;
the growth of summary
trial at the expense of jury trial ;
the influence of
the summing-up ;
the inscrutability of the verdict ;
the requirement of unanimity ;
the absence of
appeal by re-hearing ;
the function of the jury
confined to question of guilt ; and lay or professional
justices in magistrates courts.
If space permitted
it would be of great interest to discuss some of the
learned author's views, but
the member who
acquires this book will find it an invaluable
vade-
mecum
in questions relating to criminal procedure
even in the Irish courts ;
it is hoped that some
of the reforms which Professor Williams advocates
so persuasively will soon reach the statute book.
THE SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT
ASSOCIATION.
i 92nd. Annual General Meeting of the Solicitors'
Benevolent Association was held on Friday the
ijth
day of January, 1956, at the Solicitors' Buildings
Four Courts, Dublin. The Chairman, Mr. Richard
A. O'Brien, was in the Chair. Mr. Dermot P. Shaw,
President of the Incorporated Law Society of
Ireland was among those present.
7°