The Gazette 1961 - 64

questions of disputed handwriting without the assistance of expert evidence. On an appeal against conviction in a case which turned partly on whether a receipt produced by the accused had been forged by him and in which, though no handwriting expert was called by either side, the deputy chairman of quarter sessions had invited the jury to consider whether the receipt was genuine and to compare it with accused's hand writing, held that the proviso to s. 4 (i) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, should not be applied, and quashed the conviction: R. v. Tilley, 105 S.J. 685;(1961) 3 A!/E.R. 406, C.C.A. Criminal Law—identification of prisoner — photographs shown before identification. Though it is improper for a witness who is to be called to identify the accused to be shown a picture of him beforehand, it will not invalidate the trial if no substantial miscarriage of justice results. About three weeks before the trial a witness called to identify the accused was shown a photograph of him by the police. The matter was not mentioned in the summing-up and the jury convicted. Held, that in all the circumstances the conviction should not be quashed: R. v. Seiga (1961) 45 Cr. App. R. 220, C.C.A. Obstruction ofadministration of justice—attempt. (S. A.). In R. v. Watson; R. v. Halangiso, (1961) (2) S.A. 283, the High Court of Southern Rhodesia held that if A, knowing that B had been involved in a collision, and in order to obstruct or defeat the course of justice and to prevent B from being dealt with according to law, falsely informed the police that it was he, A, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the collision, A would be guilty of attempting to defeat or obstruct the course of justice. Criminal Law Trial—summing-up — degree of proof —"reasonably sure". It is a misdirection to tell a jury that they must be "reasonably sure" that the accused is guilty before they can convict. A jury convicted the appellants of receiving after the recorder had directed the jury that they must be "reasonably sure" of the appellant's guilt in order to convict. Held, on appeal, that the conviction must be quashed : R. v. Head ; R. v. Wattender (1961) 48 Cr.App.R. 225, C.C.A. 49

enforcing the collection of foreign revenue debts. The application was accordingly refused. Securedcreditor—orderfor sale ofsecurity—election (Eire}. In Re MacEntee (1960) Ir. Jur. Rep. 55, the Bank of Ireland, a secured creditor, on the same date as an offer of composition was accepted by the creditors, obtained an order for the sale of lands which con stituted their security and a receiver was appointed. About three months later the bank lodged a proof of debt and having valued their security sought to prove for the balance of their debt. Before the order for sale was made the agent for the bank had stated that the applicants relied upon their security. Budd J. held that, despite this statement, the order for sale and the appointment of the receiver, the bank had not made an election and were entitled to value their security arid to prove for the balance of the debt. In Jewish Home For The Aged of British Columbia v. Toronto General Trusts Corporation (1961) 28 D.L.R. (id.} 48, the Supreme Court of Canada held that while the rule against perpetuities will invalidate a gift for charitable purposes which is contingent on the happening of an event which may not happen within the perpetuity period, the situation is different where there is an immediate unconditional gift to charity with a designation of certain particular modes of application of the property to charitable purposes; if the particular mode of application is subject to a condition precedent which may not be satisfied within the perpetuity period, the charitable trust will not fail if there is a general unconditional intention to devote the property to charitable purposes because the cy-pres doctrine will be applied. Winding up—•opposition by majority of creditors. (IST.Z.). In Re J.R.S. Garage (1961) N.Z.L.R. 632, the New Zealand Supreme Court held that where a great majority of the creditors of a company oppose the winding up, then, even though it is established that the company is unable to pay its debts, the court should give effect to the wishes of the majority unless the petitioning creditor can give some valid reason why effect should not be given to those wishes. Criminal "Law—handwriting—expert evidence required. (Criminal Procedure Act, 1865 (28 e> 29 Vict. c. \ 8), s. 8.). A jury should not be left on their own to decide Perpetuities—whether contingent gift to charity or im mediate gift n>ith designated modes of application subject to conditionprecedent. (Can.).