236 / 266
circumstances, the motion for a new trial would be
dismissed.
Per Denning L .J. :
“
It is very rare that application
is made to this Court for a new trial on the ground
that a witness has told a He. In order to justify the
reception of fresh evidence or a new trial, three
conditions must be fulfilled : (i) It must be shown
that the evidence could not have been obtained with
reasonable dihgence for use at the trial: (2) The
evidence must be such that, if given, it would
probably have an important influence on the result,
of the case, although it need not be decisive : (3)
The evidence must be such as is presumably to be
believed; in other words it must be credible although
it need not be incontrovertible. A confessed bar
cannot usually be accepted as credible. I f it were
proved that the witness had been bribed or coerced
into telling a lie at the trial, and was now anxious
to tell the truth, that would, I think, be a ground
for a new trial. Again, if it were proved that the
witness made a mistake on a most important matter
and wished to correct it, and the circumstances were
so well explained that his fresh evidence was presum
ably to be beheved, then again there would be a
ground for a new trial. This, however, is not a
case of bribery or coercion, nor of a mistake. The
witness does not seem to have been in fear of her
husband at all. I am afraid it is simply a case o f a
witness who has told a He at the first hearing now
wishing to say something different. It would be
contrary to all principles for that to be a ground
for a new trial.” (Ladd
v.
MarshaH (1954) 3 All E .R .,
745)-
(7) The Motion Court—Inter Alia.
M
urn agh an
J., at the hearing o f motions, has
indicated his views on numbers o f points upon
which doubt might otherwise exist.
In a settlement of an action in which a company
are defendants, the signature o f the secretary is
insufficient, as the consent must be so expressed as
to bind the company should they tail to pay.
In settlements o f actions on behalf o f infant
plaintiffs, his Lordship enquires into the reasonable
ness of the costs. While it is not necessary to
vouch items, counsel should be in a position to give
some indication as to the outlay. The learned Judge,
on one appUcation, stated that if he decided to send
the costs for taxation he would add to the infant’s
compensation any o f his solicitor’s costs which were
in excess o f the figure allowed on taxation.
In settlements under the Fatal Accident Damages
Acts, 1846 and 1864, it was insufficient merely to
aver in the appHcant’s affidavit that certain possible
defendants made no claim, but letters of abandon
ment of their claims should be exhibited.
In applications in default o f appearance or defence,
the “ certificate o f proceedings ” should be forth
coming to show the Court the stage which the action
had reached, and the documents properly before the
Court.
(Irish Law Times).
RECENT LEGAL LITERATURE-
PART I.
(August to December, 1954)
Acquitting the Guilty (Goodhart)
{L .Q .
R ., October,
1954
)-
Admission to Practice in Australia (Victoria)
(Law
Inst. J ., Vic.,
December, 1954).
Administration—Termination of—“ Harvell
v.
Foster” (
L .T .
, 27th August, 1954).
Administration o f Estates—French Practice (Brown)
(Intern. & Compar. L .O .,
October, 1954).
Affidavits—Motion to add more defendants—
“ McNabb
v.
O ’Brien” (Murnaghan J.) (
I.
L .T .,
4th September, 1954).
Admiralty Courts—History o f (
[L .T .
, 24th Septem
ber, 1954).
Air and the Law (
T .L .T .
, 1st and 8th January, 1955).
Arrears o f Annuities—“ Re Cameron ”
(S.J.,
4th
December, 1954).
Appearing in Person—Principles applicable (I.L.T .,
n th September, 1954).
Assize Courts
—
History o f (
L .T
.,
15th October,
1954
)-
Bail—-Application rejected during long vacation
because opposed by Attorney-General, but special
sitting of Court o f Criminal Appeal arranged—
“ People (A.G.)
v.
Thornton” (C.C.A.)
(I.L .T .,
2Xst August, 1954).
Boxing and the Law (
T .L .T .
, 18th September, 1954).
Building Reconstructed—Compensation for dis
turbance—•“ Ryan
v.
Bradley ” (Murnaghan J.)
(I.L .T .,
30th October, 1954).
Business Premises—Compensation for Improve
ments under Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954
(S.J.,
27th November, 1954).
Clubs (
I.L .T .
, 21 st and 28th August, 1954).
Constructive Housebreaking— R. V. Boyle ”
(L.T.,
17th September, 1954).
58