The Gazette 1958-61

drug store.

S. 2 of the Act of 1939 as amended

defines "trade dispute" as "any dispute or difference

between employers and workmen, or between

workmen

and workmen,

connected with

the

employment or non-employment, or the terms of

employment, or with the conditions of labour of any

person." Held, allowing the appeal of the defendants

other than J. and S., that these defendants were not

vicariously liable for the acts of the pickets and,

allowing in part the appeal of J. and S., there was a

trade dispute, as

(a)

the clerk was a "workman",

and

(b)

a dispute between a union and an employer

could be a trade dispute. An injunction was granted

to restrain J. and S. from continuing the nuisance

and £80 damages awarded :

Bird

O'Neal (1960)

3 W.L.R. 584 ; 104 S.J. 725 ; (1960) 3 All E.R. 254

P.C.

Executors and Administrators—Probate—Destruction of

will of living person—Admission of copy to probate.

In the estate of Penson (September 29 1960)

solicitors destroyed the will of a living person,

thinking it to have been the revoked will of a

deceased person. The mistake was not discovered

until after the living person had died. On a motion

to admit a copy of the will to probate, the widow

and four surviving children consented to' the motion.

There were, however, two infant grandchildren who

had an interest in the estate. No consent to the

motion had been sought on their behalf. Buckley J.,

ordering that the copy of the will be admitted to

probate, held that since the case was a clear one, the

court should allow the contents of the will to be

proved on motion, without the consent of the

grandchildren. (D. C.) See also

The Times,

September

30, 1960.

Husband and Wife—Action by Wife against Husband—

Injunction against molesting.

In Gordon

Gordon

(September 15

1960)

Collingwood J. granted an injunction restraining a

husband from molesting his wife and from going to

her home, her parents' home or to the office of her

solicitor, and from communicating with his wife or

her aunts, cousins or parents or with her solicitor

otherwise than by prepaid letter. On a summons

to commit the husband to prison for contempt of

court for breach of the injunction, Pennycuick J.,

dismissing the summons, ordered that the injunction

be continued, pending the hearing of the divorce

suit between the parties, but that it be varied to the

extent that the husband be restrained from communi

cating with the wife otherwise than by prepaid letter

or with her written consent.

(D.C.) See also

The

Times,

September 16, 1960.

Libel and Slander—Publication.

In Truth (N.Z.)

Holloway (July 26, 1960) a

jury awarded a plaintiff damages in respect of an

article which had appeared

the defendant's

newspaper.

In the course of his summing-up the

trial judge had said :

"It is not a defence at all that a

statement that might be defamatory is put forward

by way of report only." On appeal on the ground of

misdirection, the Privy Council (Lords Simonds,

Reid, Tucker, Denning and Morris) held, dismissing

the appeal, that every republication of a libel was a

new libel, and that each publisher was answerable for

his act to the same extent as if the calumny originated

with him.

(D.C.)