The Gazette 1964/67

P had for some years had accounts at both the X and Y branches of a bank. Then the bank issued him with cheque books which stated on the cover that "the cheques in this book will be applied to the account for which they have been prepared". P changed the name of the branch from X to Y on a cheque from such a book and later stopped it by giving notice to branch Y. The cheque was electron ically sorted by a computer which could not read the alteration and went to branch X, which paid it. In an action by P against the bank for the amount of the cheque, held that the bank should not have debited it to his account and the action succeeded. Burnettf. Westminster Bank (1965) 3 All.E.R. 81, Mocatta J. DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL, 1965 Attention of members is drawn tn part five of the above Bill which deals with ortences and legal proceedings. An offence under the Act may be prosecuted by the Minister. Section 48 provides that offences are punishable by fine only, unless the offence is repeated within twelve months. General provisions as to procedure are contained in Section 5 2 which states where the owner or person in charge of an animal or bird is charged with an offence under the Act in relation to disease or any illness of the animal or bird, he should be presumed to have known the existence of the disease or illness, unless he shows to the satisfaction of the Court that he had not, and could not with reasonable diligence have obtained such knowledge. There is a departure from customary thought relating to evidence and form of service of instruments, Section 53 of the Bill provides that in any proceedings under the Act no proof should be required of the appointment or handwriting of an inspector or other officer of the Minister or of the Secretary or an inspector or other officer of the Local Authority. Any notice under the Act or under any order or regulation made under the Act must be in writing. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY The thirty-seventh report of the Controller for the year ended 3ist March, 1965, has been laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and is available from the Government Publications Sale Office, G.P.O. Arcade, priced at one shilling and sixpence. Members may be interested to note that three candidates sat for examinations conducted by the Board nominated under the prescription by the Minister for Industry

agreement on the definition of "rock" but the general contractor was to confirm this by letter. No letter was sent and subsequently the sub-contractor wrote quoting prices for the contract. When the general contractor had been awarded the highway contract he sent to the sub-contractor the standard form of sub-contract involving a possible difference in the definition of "rock". As a result the sub contractor refused to sign the form and withdrew from the job. The general contractor sued for damages for breach of contract. On appeal, held, that no contract had been made and the general contractor's submission of the standard sub-contract was a mere counter offer which had not been accepted. The letter confirming the definition of "rock" was a condition going to the root of the offer and not a mere incident of the contract. Pigott Structures v. Keillor Construction Co. (1965) 50 D.L.R. (ad) 97, Ontario C.A. Assessment of damages—duty to mitigate loss The plaintiff was unable, for financial reasons, to reconstruct living accommodation above his store premises and it was consequently necessary for him to acquire a new home. Held, that the defendant's liability must be limited to the cost of living accom modation comparable to that destroyed, and for a period of time reasonably required to replace the original building. Bischoff v. Sams (1965) 50 D.L.R. (zd) 179, Alberta Supreme Court. Personal injuries—assessment—punitive damages In an unprovoked and vicious assault, the defendant stabbed the plaintiff in the back, damaging the spinal cord and causing the plaintiff to be a paraplegic for life. Held, that punitive or exemplary damages should not be awarded in addition to the general and special damages because the case did not fall within the categories described by Lord Devlin in Rookes v. Barnard and because the defendant had already been punished for his act by conviction and imprisonment. Schuster v. Martin (1965) 50 D.L.R. (zd) 176, British Columbia Supreme Court. Cheques—contractual—conditions—written on cheque book A notice on a cheque book cover sent to an existing customer of a bank that "the cheques ... in this book will be applied to the account for which they have been prepared" does not prevent the customer from validly changing the name of the branch on a cheque. Per curiam: The position might be different where the cheque book was the first issued to the customer on his opening the account and would be different if the notice was on the cheque.