The Gazette 1958-61

266 / 338

Court practitioners who secure a copy will rest
^content in the knowledge that this essential
volume will considerably lighten their burden. Ever}'
solicitor and barrister should have this work in his
library, and, if he practises in the District Court, on
his desk.
District Justice Crotty has long experience of the
District Court Bench and, for many a day to come,
his colleagues and those who practice before them,
will thank him for providing in such easily assimilable
form the fruits of his experience and the results of
very patient research. C.G.D.
ADMISSIONS AS SOLICITORS
ist August, 1959 to iistju/j, 1960.
Correction to August/September GAZETTE.
Name Service with
FELTON, DAVID R., FELTON, ROBERT E.,
34 Belgrave Road, 18 Eustace Street,
Monkstown, Dublin.
Co. Dublin.
PART-TIME LEGAL AGENCIES
The council do not approve of the employment by
solicitors of part-time legal agencies except in the
recognised field of searches and costs drawing. No
other work should be entrusted to a person who is
not in the wholetime employment of the solicitor.
RECENT DECIDED CASES
Libe/—pleadings—defence—striking out parts. (R..S.C.
Ord. 19, r. 15.)
A defendant in a libel action may, in mitigation of
damages, give evidence that the plaintiff bears a bad
character in the sense that he has a bad reputation.
Evidence must be limited to general reputation and
cannot be extended to specific acts. In an action for
libel in a film the defendants pleaded justification
and in the alternative that in mitigation of damages
they would give evidence as to the character of the
plaintiff. As particulars under the latter it was
alleged that the pictures and words complained of
were published as part of the film wherein the plaintiff
was depicted as having been guilty of conduct
therein set out, " the truth of which the plaintiff, in
his amended statement of claim, does not deny ".
The guilty conduct was then particularised under the
description of various war crimes. Held, that, the
defence should be amended so as to omit reference
to specific acts of the plaintiff: Speidel v. Plato
Films ; Same v. Unity Theatre Society (1960) 3
W.L.R. 391 ; (1960) 2 All E.R. 521, C.A.
Costs—Bullock order—unsuccessful defendant bankrupt.
Where there are two defendants, one of whom is
successful and the other unsuccessful and bankrupt,
the judge can, at his discretion, take either of two
courses : he can order the plaintiff to pay the costs
of both defendants and allow him to recover all those
costs from the unsuccessful defendant, so throwing
the burden of the bankrupt on the plaintiff, or he
can order the unsuccessful defendant to pay the
costs of both his co-defendant and the plaintiff
direct, so throwing the burden of the bankruptcy
on the successful defendant.
A plaintiff obtained judgment against the third
of three defendants, but the first two defendants
succeeded in their defences. Fifteen months before
the trial all but £5 IDS. od. of the damages ultimately
awarded had been paid into court and the plaintiff
knew who the third defendant was, but took no
steps to discover his financial standing. He was an
undischarged bankrupt. The judge refused to order
the third defendant to pay the first two defendants'
costs, but ordered the plaintiff to pay them, with
recourse against the third defendant. On appeal to
the Court of Appeal, Sellers and Willmer .
Harman L.J. dissenting, held that the judge was
exercising a discretion and so his order should not
be disturbed but in any case in the circumstances
the burden should fall on the plaintiff, not on the
first two defendants : Mayer^. Harte(i96o) i W.L.R.
770 ; (1960) 2 All E.R. 840, C.A.
Malicious prosecution and false imprisonment—malicious
prosecution—unsuccessfulprosecution.
In Berry v. British Transport Commission (July 30,
1960) Diplock J. held, that an unsuccessful pro
secution for unlawfully, wilfully and without reason
able and sufficient cause, pulling the communication
cord on a train, contrary to section 22 of the
Regulation of Railways Act 1868, did not entitle
the person prosecuted to recover damages for
malicious prosecution—(1960) 3 W.L.R. 666.
Practice—appeal—interventions by judge—submission to
judgment—application for new trial.
In Badcock v. Middlesex Count)1 Council (July 28,
1960) on December 3, 1959, on the eighth day of
the trial of an action before Roxburgh J., in which
the plaintiffs claimed damages for nuisance and in
junctions against the Middlesex County Council, the
Central Electricity Generating Board and the London
County Council, in respect of alleged corrosion by
sewage effluent to the plaintiffs' Thames barges, the
plaintiffs through their counsel, submitted to judg
ment for the defendants with costs. The plaintiffs
thereupon appealed, asking that the judgment of
Roxburgh J. be reversed or set aside, and that a
new trial of the action be ordered ; that if and in
so far as the decisions or rulings of the judge during
the opening of the plaintiffs' case were orders or
54