28 / 364
defendant for his consent to assignment to the
plaintiff, but the defendant did not give his consent.
The defendant had conceded that the plaintiff was
respectable, but questioned whether he was respon–
sible.
The plaintiff obtained several references, including
one from his bank, which stated that he was good for
£1,000.
The defendant contended that there was no
trade reference and that " responsible" in this
context did not mean only the responsibility to meet
financial obligations, but it also
indicated
the
disposition to fulfil the obligations of the lease. He
must have business ability.
The Court rejected such interpretation.
The
plaintiff had
satisfied
the
requirements of the
covenants.
Since the defendant did not give his
consent for a considerable time, the lessee was
justified in assigning the lease to the plaintiff without
the consent of the defendant. It was not necessary
to join the assignor as a party for the relief sought
here. It was conceivable that neither the assignment
which would be conclusive as between the assignor
and assignee nor a declaration such as was sought
here which would be conclusive as between assignee
and landlord, would necessarily preclude an action
for damages for breach of covenant between landlord
and
tenant.
(Theodorou
v.
Bloom, The Times,
19th June, 1964.)
Covenant in restraint ofpractice.
The Court dismissed
this application by
the
plaintiff, an estate agent, for an injunction restraining
until the trial the defendant, a surveyor, from
carrying on in breach of the covenant a business of or
connected with, or taking employment with any,
estate agent, surveyor, valuer or auctioneer within a
radius of one mile from the plaintiff's office and
soliciting business from any person or building
society who were, during the subsistence of partner–
ship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the
customers and those becoming so during two years
from November izth, 1963.
His Lordship said that at the date of the partner–
ship agreement the plaintiff was carrying on business
from four offices in The Temple, Tooting, Putney
and Battersea and his policy was to specialise as to
the property dealt with by each office. The Temple
office dealt with properties of a commercial and
industrial nature. He entered into partnership with
the defendant in 1957 in the firm name of "Rayners"
at 205 Lavender Hill. The plaintiff was to be the
principal partner while the defendant became a
salaried partner. The partnership was terminated in
November, 1963 and the defendant carried on
business within the area restricted by the covenant.
The restriction on not soliciting business from
those who became customers after two years of
termination of the partnership and also the restric–
tion not to carry on the business of estate agent were
too wide and no interlocutory relief could be
granted for the breaches of such covenant.
(Rayner
v.
Pegler, The Times, nth March, 1964.)
Pretending to be a solicitor.
The Divisional Court refused this application by
an inquiry agent, for the extension of time to appeal
against the decision of Essex Quarter Sessions who,
on April
2.6th,
1963 confirmed his conviction on
January 2ist, 1963, by Essex justices sitting at
Clacton-on-Sea that he, on October 8th, 1962, being
an unqualified person, wilfully pretended to be
qualified to act as a solicitor contrary to section 19
of the Solicitors Act, 1957. On behalf of the applicant
it was stated that on October 8th, 1962 at a meeting
between his clients and the police, he led the police
to believe that he was representing a firm ofsolicitors.
He did not say that he was a solicitor, but called
himself a legal adviser. The applicant sought to
contend that his conduct did not fall within the
scope of section 19 ;
that the section created two
offences and that even if his conduct fell within the
section, the applicant was not guilty of the offence
charged ; and that the words in the section "qualified
or recognised by law to act as a solicitor" required
that the applicant must be proved to have conducted
himself or to have acted in such a way as only a
solicitor was entitled to act.
The delay was occasioned in the first place by delay
in refusing legal aid to the applicant for the purposes
of the appeal. Further delay was caused, through no
fault of the applicant, in respect of agreeing the
terms of the case stated which was not received until
January loth, 1964, and by the fact that counsel for
the respondent was not instructed to settle the draft
case until about October i5th, 1963.
After the
Court had considered
the matter, Mr.
Justice
Widgery stated that the Court was not satisfied with
the explanations for the considerable delay and
would not grant the extension sought.
(Merry
if.
Batson, The Times, March nth, 1964.)
Solicitors' charge in fund recovered.
In proceedings under s. 17 of the Married Women's
Property Act, 1882, a wife, who was legally aided,
obtained an order for the sale of property owned
jointly, subject to a mortgage, by herself and her
husband, and an order for costs was made in her
favour. The proceeds of sale were to be paid as to
one-half to the wife's solicitors and as to the other
half to the husband's solicitors. The wife's costs of
the s. 17 proceedings amounted to £191 75. 8d. and
she sought, and obtained, a garnishee order
nisi