The Gazette 1964/67

those who became customers after two years of termination of the partnership and also the restric– tion not to carry on the business of estate agent were too wide and no interlocutory relief could be granted for the breaches of such covenant. (Rayner v. Pegler, The Times, nth March, 1964.) Pretending to be a solicitor. The Divisional Court refused this application by an inquiry agent, for the extension of time to appeal against the decision of Essex Quarter Sessions who, on April 2.6th, 1963 confirmed his conviction on January 2ist, 1963, by Essex justices sitting at Clacton-on-Sea that he, on October 8th, 1962, being an unqualified person, wilfully pretended to be qualified to act as a solicitor contrary to section 19 of the Solicitors Act, 1957. On behalf of the applicant it was stated that on October 8th, 1962 at a meeting between his clients and the police, he led the police to believe that he was representing a firm ofsolicitors. He did not say that he was a solicitor, but called himself a legal adviser. The applicant sought to contend that his conduct did not fall within the scope of section 19 ; that the section created two offences and that even if his conduct fell within the section, the applicant was not guilty of the offence charged ; and that the words in the section "qualified or recognised by law to act as a solicitor" required that the applicant must be proved to have conducted himself or to have acted in such a way as only a solicitor was entitled to act. The delay was occasioned in the first place by delay in refusing legal aid to the applicant for the purposes of the appeal. Further delay was caused, through no fault of the applicant, in respect of agreeing the terms of the case stated which was not received until January loth, 1964, and by the fact that counsel for the respondent was not instructed to settle the draft case until about October i5th, 1963. After the Court had considered the matter, Mr. Justice Widgery stated that the Court was not satisfied with the explanations for the considerable delay and would not grant the extension sought. (Merry if. Batson, The Times, March nth, 1964.) Solicitors' charge in fund recovered. In proceedings under s. 17 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, a wife, who was legally aided, obtained an order for the sale of property owned jointly, subject to a mortgage, by herself and her husband, and an order for costs was made in her favour. The proceeds of sale were to be paid as to one-half to the wife's solicitors and as to the other half to the husband's solicitors. The wife's costs of the s. 17 proceedings amounted to £191 75. 8d. and she sought, and obtained, a garnishee order nisi

defendant for his consent to assignment to the plaintiff, but the defendant did not give his consent. The defendant had conceded that the plaintiff was respectable, but questioned whether he was respon– sible. The plaintiff obtained several references, including one from his bank, which stated that he was good for £1,000. The defendant contended that there was no trade reference and that " responsible" in this context did not mean only the responsibility to meet financial obligations, but it also indicated the disposition to fulfil the obligations of the lease. He must have business ability. The Court rejected such interpretation. The plaintiff had satisfied the requirements of the covenants. Since the defendant did not give his consent for a considerable time, the lessee was justified in assigning the lease to the plaintiff without the consent of the defendant. It was not necessary to join the assignor as a party for the relief sought here. It was conceivable that neither the assignment which would be conclusive as between the assignor and assignee nor a declaration such as was sought here which would be conclusive as between assignee and landlord, would necessarily preclude an action for damages for breach of covenant between landlord and tenant. (Theodorou v. Bloom, The Times, 19th June, 1964.) Covenant in restraint ofpractice. The Court dismissed this application by the plaintiff, an estate agent, for an injunction restraining until the trial the defendant, a surveyor, from carrying on in breach of the covenant a business of or connected with, or taking employment with any, estate agent, surveyor, valuer or auctioneer within a radius of one mile from the plaintiff's office and soliciting business from any person or building society who were, during the subsistence of partner– ship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the customers and those becoming so during two years from November izth, 1963. His Lordship said that at the date of the partner– ship agreement the plaintiff was carrying on business from four offices in The Temple, Tooting, Putney and Battersea and his policy was to specialise as to the property dealt with by each office. The Temple office dealt with properties of a commercial and industrial nature. He entered into partnership with the defendant in 1957 in the firm name of "Rayners" at 205 Lavender Hill. The plaintiff was to be the principal partner while the defendant became a salaried partner. The partnership was terminated in November, 1963 and the defendant carried on business within the area restricted by the covenant. The restriction on not soliciting business from