300 / 364
book. Consequently the defendant did not get a
good title. (Pearson v. Rose & Young Ltd. (1951)
1
K.B. 275, C.A., applied).
(George
v.
Revis,
The Times,
8/11/66).
Bailment — Duty of Care
A case of dresses was stolen from a dock shed
whilst in the custody of a firm of master porters.
The owners of the case brought an action against
them alleging that they were guilty of negligence
in that they had failed to take reasonable care
of it.
It w
as held
(C.A. :
Sellers, Danckwerts and
Salmon
L.JJ.:
June 8, 1966) (affirming the de
cision of Judge Stansfield given at Liverpool
County Court) that the master porters were liable.
It was not sufficient for them to prove that the
system of looking after the goods was impeccable.
Part of the system was to have a watchman on
duty in the shed. They had to show that the
watchman had carefully performed his duty and
this they had not done. There was ample evidence
to justify the finding that the watchman had not
been sufficiently vigilant.
(Global Dress Co. Ltd. v. W. H. Boase & Co.
Ltd. (1966) 2 Lloyd's Reports, page 72).
Costs for Removal of Fallen Tree
In Williams v. Devon County Council
the
appellant highway authority claimed a sum of
£30-10-10 from the respondent, that being the
cost to the appellants of removing a tree which
had been blown down in a high wind from the
respondent's land and had fallen across the high
way. Section 9
(1)
(c) of the Highway (Miscel
laneous Provisions) Act, 1961 entitles a highway
authority to
recover
the cost of
removing arj
obstruction of a highway from the owner of the
obstructing thing, except where the owner "proves
that he took reasonable care to secure that the
thing in question did not cause or contribute to
the obstruction." The respondent had regularly
inspected the tree and was satisfied that it was not
likely to fall.
Held—an owner of a tree which fell on a high
way was not to be liable to pay the highway
authority for its removal merely because the high
way authority, in fulfilment of their clear duty,
removed it before the owner could do so.
(Williams v. Devon County Council,
The Times,
November 9, 1966).
Compensation Arising from Road Works
Exeter Corporation wished to construct a ring
road and for that purpose the Minister of Trans
port, at their instigation, confirmed a compul
sory purchase order over property in the line of
the ring road and made an order stopping-up a
number of streets. In one of the streets concerned,
Coombe Street, the plaintiff had his garage, and
after the stopping-up of Coombe Street, and the
carrying out of roadworks there, the plaintiff's
premises came to be situated at the end of a cul-
de-sac, part of his garage frontage was lost and
one exit from his forecourt was blocked. That
adversely affected his business and the value of
his premises as premises. The plaintiff sought a
declaration that he was entitled to compensation
under s.63 of
the Land Clauses Consolidation
Act, 1945. The defendants contended that the
premises had not been
injuriously affected, or
that if they had this was the result, not of the
defendants' roadwords, but of the stopping-up of
the highway by order of the Minister, and that if
compensation was
in fact payable,
it was
the
Minister, not they, who should pay it.
It was held, that the step taken by the Minister
was only because the defendants sought him to
take such measures, and
the defendants were
responsible in all for the consequences of that
step. By reason of that responsibility the defend
ants were liable to pay compensation to the plain
tiff as one whose premises had been injurisouly
affectetd by the authorised street works carried out
by the defendants in
the course of which the
stopping-up of Coombe Street was merely an
incident and from which it could not be isolated.
(Jolliffe v. Exeter Corporation,
The Times,
November 11, 1966).
THE REGISTRY
Registry B
Solicitor in practice seeks assistantship conveyancing or
otherwise. West or Midlands preferred, to continue
in practice.—Box B283.
Registry C
In
the Goods of ANNIE C. WHOOLEY,
late of
11, Lower Friars Walk, Cork, Spinster, Deceased.
WILL any solicitor having knowledge as to the existence
or otherwise of any Will made by the above-named
deceased, who died on the 6th November, 1P66, please
communicate with the undersigned.
DANIEL G. MCCARTHY,
Solicitor,
SKIBBEREEN, CO. CORK.
-,62