60 / 364
lands adversely affected by such acts :
in trespass
actions it was the lands trespassed upon which were
the criterion and he considered that this case was
analogous to a trespass action.
(I.L.T.
&
S.J.
5th September, 1964, p. 321.)
Stamp Duties—companies' consideration—negotiable
letters
Company A proposed
to
amalgamate with
company B by acquiring all B's issued shares. A
conditional offer of shares and cash was made by
A to B's shareholders ;
the cash was less than 10%
of the total consideration, which was therefore
within the exemption to stamp duty conferred by
s. 55 of the Finance Act, 1927.
(17 & 18 Geo. V,
c. 10.) At the same time it was arranged that a
finance house should offer shares in A to preference
shareholders in B at a discount, by way of negotiable
letters, conditional on A's offer becoming un
conditional ;
if the letters formed part of the
consideration for A's acquisition of B's shares, then
the consideration for the acquisition offered in a
form other than the issue of A's shares would
amount to more than 10 per cent, of the total
consideration. The Inland Revenue Commissioners
assessed the share transfers to A to stamp duty of
over £100,000. HELD, allowing A's appeal against
the assessment, that on the facts A's offer did not
include a promise by them that the finance house
would make the offer which they did in fact make,
so that no stamp duty was payable and duty already
paid was to be returned.
(Central and District Properties
v.
I.R.C.,
The
Times,
ist August,
1964, Ungoed-Thomas
J.,
8 C.L., p. 456.)
Summing up a trial
D was charged with shopbreaking, the case for the
prosecution being that he was found, about an hour
and a half after the offence, in a car containing the
stolen goods, with two men who were undoubtedly
guilty of the offence. During his summing up, the
Deputy Chairman read many parts of the evidence,
but made no attempt to analyse it or to indicate the
strength and weakness of the prosecution and
defence cases.
D was convicted and appealed.
HELD, allowing the appeal, that the jury should
have been warned to be careful before they convicted
D simply because he was found in the car ;
that the
summing up was unsatisfactory;
and that D's
conviction could not stand.
(R.
v.
Trimmer,
The Guardian,
2oth August, 1964,
C.C.A. (8 C.L. p. 441).)
Criminal law—misdirection
D was charged with offences of false pretences. In
the course of his summing up, the Deputy Chair
man, directing the jury upon the burden of proof,
told them they must be reasonably satisfied, in the
way that they would wish to be if taking an important
decision of their own, that D was guilty, before they
could convict.
D was convicted and appealed.
HELD, allowing the appeal, that the direction was
defective in that the Deputy Chairman had failed
to explain what he meant by " satisfied ", so that the
jury might have thought that they had only to be
satisfied on the probabilities of the case.
(R.
v.
Gaunt,
The Guardian,
2oth August, 1964,
C.C.A. (8 C.L. p. 442).)
MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 5TH :
The President in the chair, also
present, Messrs. James W. O'Donovan, Peter D. M.
Prentice, Raymond A. French, Eunan McCarron,
Patrick Noonan, Daniel J. O'Connor, Peter E.
O'ConneU, Edward J. C. Dillon, William A.
Osborne, Thomas J. Fitzpatrick, Joseph P. Black,
Robert McD. Taylor, James R. C. Green, Ralph J.
Walker, Brendan A. McGrath, Gerard M. Doyle,
Niall S. Gaffney, George G. Overend.
The following was among the business transacted :
Preliminary investigation of indictable
offences
The Council considered a report from a committee
on the statement issued from the Department of
Justice
that
the
then Minister (Mr. Haughey)
intended to introduce legislation based on the
minority report that the preliminary hearing should
be abolished. The majority report of the Commission
on the Courts recommended that the preliminary
investigation of indictable offences should be retained
and made certain recommendations with a view to
expediting and simplifying the proceedings including
a suggestion which would enable the District Justice
to dispense with oral evidence on certain matters
where the accused so consents. The majority report
of the Commission on the Courts adopted most of
the suggestions made in the Society's memorandum
on evidence. The General Council of the Bar have
already published a statement urging the Minister
to adopt the recommendations in the majority report.
It was decided that a similar request should be sent
by the Council to the present Minister for Justice.
Succession Bill, 1964
The Council received a report on the present
position with regard to section 37 and parts IX and
X of the Bill.
It was decided to release for press
publication the Society's memorandum on parts IX