The Gazette 1961 - 64

he was the man in question but he was identified by three witnesses as having posed as a fitter when committing other similar offences. On appeal it was argued that the evidence of the other offences was inadmissible and that the conviction should accord– ingly be quashed. Held that the evidence was admissible on the question of identity and the appeal failed. R. v. Giovannone (1960) 45 Cr. App. R. 31, C.C.A. In R. v. Heaps (1961) Crim. L. R. 254, the appellant had been convicted of receiving furs which had been found in possession of C. who, being indicted with the appel– lant, gave evidence against him. The jury were given no warning as to how they should approach C.'s evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeal, allowing the appeal, held that warning that C.'s evidence should be looked upon with suspicion should have been given and corroborative evidence looked for. Murder diminished responsibility "abnormality of mind". The "abnormality of mind" referred to in the Bahamas Islands (Special Defences) Act, 1959 (which is similar to the Homicide Act, 1957), should not be judged by seeing whether it is on the border– line of insanity as defined in the M'Naghten Rules. It means something which a jury would consider as partial insanity or on the border-line of insanity in the popular, not the M'Naghten, sense. The appellant was convicted of murder in the Bahamas in spite of a plea of diminished responsibility under the above Act. The judge had read the M'Naghten Rules to the jury and left it to them whether the appellant was on the border-line of insanity as defined by those Rules. Held that that was a misdirection and the conviction should be quashed. Rose v. R. (1961) 2 W.L.R. 506 ; 105 S.J. 253 ; (1961) i All E.R. 859 P.C. Res judicata — by implication question not directly raised in former proceedings. (Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935 (25 & 26 Geo. 5, c. 30), s. 6 (i) (c), (2).) The point at issue in later proceedings is not res judicata and there is no estoppel by record unless the question in the earlier proceedings was precisely the same as that in the later. In a collision between two motor-cars T., the driver of one, and the plaintiff, his passenger, were injured. T. sued S. in the county court for damages, but judgment was given for S., the court holding that T. was wholly to blame for the accident. Later, the plaintiff sued T. and S. in the High Court for damages, each denied liability and S. served a third Evidence corroboration accomplice.

all cases coming to notice where land is acquired by non-nationals. The section, except that part of it which relates to pre-1947 companies, will have effect from the ist August, 1961. Section 30. Existing legislation provides for the application of the 25 per cent. Stamp Duty to certain leases of land in the same way as it applies to con– veyances and transfers on sale. This section carries out in relation to such leases amendments of the law similar to those contained in Section 29 in relation to conveyances and transfers.

PART V. MISCELLANEOUS AND GENERAL.

Section 32 removes the restriction which at present prevents the Bank of Ireland from making advances or loans to the Minister for Finance without the consent of the Oireachtas. The restriction does not apply to any bank other than the Bank of Ireland.

DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST

Delegated powers invalid sub-delegation (N.Z.). In Hawke's Bay Raw Milk Producers Co-operative Co. v. New Zealand Milk Board (1961) N.Z.L.R. 218, the New Zealand Court of Appeal held that a purported sub-delegation by the Governor-General of the Minister of Agriculture of a power to fix milk prices was invalid. The court also held that in making regulations under statutory authority the Governor- General was exercising a delegated power of legisla– tion. Evidence admissibility highly prejudicial evidence. At the trial of a man charged with wound– ing his wife with intent to cause her grievous bodily harm a neighbour gave evidence that the wife had said to a neighbour "He shot me, he said he would." The judge gave a strong direction to the jury to ignore those words and the jury convicted. Held on appeal that the conviction should be quashed because the neighbour's evidence was so likely to influence the jury that even after the judge's direction there was a distinct danger that the jury had been influenced by that evidence. R. v. Parker (1960) 45 Cr. App. R. i, C.C.A. Evidence identification. Evidence of similar offences is admissible in questions of identification. The appellant was convicted of obtaining a car by false pretences in that he went with another man to the seller of the car and posed as a fitter advising the other man who finally bought the car for a cheque which was dishonoured. The appellant denied that 16