The Gazette 1949-1952

THE CALENDAR AND LAW DIRECTORY, 1950

“ Service o f pleadings, notices, summonses, orders, rules and other proceedings, shall be effected before the hour o f 4 in the afternoon, except on Saturdays when it shall be effected before the hour of 12 noon. Service effected after 4 in the afternoon o f any week day except Saturday, for for the purpose o f measuring any period of time subsequent to such service, shall be deemed to have been effected on the follow­ ing day.” The plaintiff’s solicitor, having obtained the exten­ sion of time mentioned above, delivered a statement of claim at the office o f the defendant’s solicitors at 5.45 p.m. on 28th November, 1949. The defendant contended that the statement o f claim was delivered out of time and, accordingly, that the action stood dismissed under the order o f the Court. The argu­ ment for this proposition was that when the judge said “ delivery on November 28th,” he meant “ delivery at such a time on that day as the rules provide.” The plaintiff, on the other hand, con­ tended that the dismissal of the action for want o f prosecution was not one o f the proceedings specified in Order 64, Rule 1 1 , and that, accordingly, a statement o f claim delivered at any time on Novem­ ber 28th was sufficient to safeguard the action from being dismissed for want o f prosecution. The matter was tested by assuming that the action in fact stood dismissed, and by appealing. The majority of the Court of Appeal seemed to think that the action did not, in fact, stand dismissed, as the order o f the High Court was not sufficiently explicit in this regard on the question o f time. In the final result, the Court decided to assume that the statement of claim had been delivered out o f time, and to validate it by requesting an extension o f time, but without costs. Solicitor’s liability for aiding and abetting client T he modern client is naturally anxious to avoid the multitude o f controls imposed by emergency legis­ lation, not to mention income tax, stamp duties, and other impositions which he has come to regard as being o f a penal nature, The case of Johnson v. Youden & Anor. (66 T .L.R . 395), shows how easily a solicitor may find himself in the position of aiding and abetting an offence on the part o f the client. It arose out o f Section 7 (1) o f the (English) Building Materials and Housing Act, 1945, which makes it an offence to offer a house for sale at a price in excess of the permitted price. The builder, who was convicted o f an offence under the Act, had instructed a firm of solicitors in which there were three partners to act for him in connection with the sale. 63

T he Calendar for 1950 has been on sale since April 1 st, and may be obtained from the Society’s offices, Price 7/6, post free, 8/2. The Council regret that owing to difficulties in the printing trade it was not possible to have the Calendar published earlier. After satisfying orders already received, there is a limited number of copies available, and any member who has not ordered a copy o f the Calendar should do so immediately. Ethics o f Cross-examination I n a case recently reported in the Times newspaper, the Lord Chief Justice of England, in delivering judgement, dismissing the appeal of a man against his conviction at Liverpool Assizes, said that the importance o f the case was that it appeared that the appellant, through his counsel, had alleged that a statement had been extorted from him by the police. The police had denied that in cross-examination. The allegation was a serious one, and a thing which was too often said without foundation. The Court desired to call attention to the fact that having suggested that to the police in cross-examination, and having made that allegation before the Jury, counsel did not call upon his client to substantiate what he had told him to say. It was one thing to examine a witness as to credit, but quite another thing to cross-examine him with no materia' to support allegations against him. It was entirely wrong to make suggestions, as in the present case, that the police threatened to beat a man up unless he made a confession, and then not to substantiate them. The Court hoped that counsel would refrain from making such charges if they have no eviderce with which to substantiate them. Time : pleading delivered after 5 p.m. I n Kaye v. Levinson (66 T .L.R . 613). The plaintiff cin an action applied for extension of time for 'delivering his statement of claim, and an order was made that the action should stand dismissed unless he statement o f claim was delivered on or before 28th November, 1949. The English Order, 64, Rule 11 (which is identical in terms with R.S.C. Order 64, Rule 13, except that the time named therein is 4 p.m., instead o f 5 p.m. as in this country) is as follows : PROFESSIONAL ITEMS