The Gazette 1964/67

lands adversely affected by such acts : in trespass actions it was the lands trespassed upon which were the criterion and he considered that this case was analogous to a trespass action. (I.L.T. & S.J. 5th September, 1964, p. 321.) Stamp Duties—companies' consideration—negotiable letters Company A proposed to amalgamate with company B by acquiring all B's issued shares. A conditional offer of shares and cash was made by A to B's shareholders ; the cash was less than 10% of the total consideration, which was therefore within the exemption to stamp duty conferred by s. 55 of the Finance Act, 1927. (17 & 18 Geo. V, c. 10.) At the same time it was arranged that a finance house should offer shares in A to preference shareholders in B at a discount, by way of negotiable letters, conditional on A's offer becoming un conditional ; if the letters formed part of the consideration for A's acquisition of B's shares, then the consideration for the acquisition offered in a form other than the issue of A's shares would amount to more than 10 per cent, of the total consideration. The Inland Revenue Commissioners assessed the share transfers to A to stamp duty of over £100,000. HELD, allowing A's appeal against the assessment, that on the facts A's offer did not include a promise by them that the finance house would make the offer which they did in fact make, so that no stamp duty was payable and duty already paid was to be returned. (Central and District Properties v. I.R.C., The Times, ist August, 1964, Ungoed-Thomas J., 8 C.L., p. 456.) Summing up a trial D was charged with shopbreaking, the case for the prosecution being that he was found, about an hour and a half after the offence, in a car containing the stolen goods, with two men who were undoubtedly guilty of the offence. During his summing up, the Deputy Chairman read many parts of the evidence, but made no attempt to analyse it or to indicate the strength and weakness of the prosecution and defence cases. D was convicted and appealed. HELD, allowing the appeal, that the jury should have been warned to be careful before they convicted D simply because he was found in the car ; that the summing up was unsatisfactory; and that D's conviction could not stand. (R. v. Trimmer, The Guardian, 2oth August, 1964, C.C.A. (8 C.L. p. 441).) Criminal law—misdirection D was charged with offences of false pretences. In

the course of his summing up, the Deputy Chair man, directing the jury upon the burden of proof, told them they must be reasonably satisfied, in the way that they would wish to be if taking an important decision of their own, that D was guilty, before they could convict. D was convicted and appealed. HELD, allowing the appeal, that the direction was defective in that the Deputy Chairman had failed to explain what he meant by " satisfied ", so that the jury might have thought that they had only to be satisfied on the probabilities of the case. (R. v. Gaunt, The Guardian, 2oth August, 1964, C.C.A. (8 C.L. p. 442).) MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL NOVEMBER 5TH : The President in the chair, also present, Messrs. James W. O'Donovan, Peter D. M. Prentice, Raymond A. French, Eunan McCarron, Patrick Noonan, Daniel J. O'Connor, Peter E. O'ConneU, Edward J. C. Dillon, William A. Osborne, Thomas J. Fitzpatrick, Joseph P. Black, Robert McD. Taylor, James R. C. Green, Ralph J. Walker, Brendan A. McGrath, Gerard M. Doyle, Niall S. Gaffney, George G. Overend. The following was among the business transacted : Preliminary investigation of indictable offences The Council considered a report from a committee on the statement issued from the Department of Justice that the then Minister (Mr. Haughey) intended to introduce legislation based on the minority report that the preliminary hearing should be abolished. The majority report of the Commission on the Courts recommended that the preliminary investigation of indictable offences should be retained and made certain recommendations with a view to expediting and simplifying the proceedings including a suggestion which would enable the District Justice to dispense with oral evidence on certain matters where the accused so consents. The majority report of the Commission on the Courts adopted most of the suggestions made in the Society's memorandum on evidence. The General Council of the Bar have already published a statement urging the Minister to adopt the recommendations in the majority report. It was decided that a similar request should be sent by the Council to the present Minister for Justice. Succession Bill, 1964 The Council received a report on the present position with regard to section 37 and parts IX and X of the Bill. It was decided to release for press publication the Society's memorandum on parts IX