The Gazette 1952-1955

circumstances, the motion for a new trial would be dismissed. Per Denning L .J. : “ It is very rare that application is made to this Court for a new trial on the ground that a witness has told a He. In order to justify the reception of fresh evidence or a new trial, three conditions must be fulfilled : (i) It must be shown that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable dihgence for use at the trial: (2) The evidence must be such that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result, of the case, although it need not be decisive : (3) The evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed; in other words it must be credible although it need not be incontrovertible. A confessed bar cannot usually be accepted as credible. I f it were proved that the witness had been bribed or coerced into telling a lie at the trial, and was now anxious to tell the truth, that would, I think, be a ground for a new trial. Again, if it were proved that the witness made a mistake on a most important matter and wished to correct it, and the circumstances were so well explained that his fresh evidence was presum­ ably to be beheved, then again there would be a ground for a new trial. This, however, is not a case of bribery or coercion, nor of a mistake. The witness does not seem to have been in fear of her husband at all. I am afraid it is simply a case o f a witness who has told a He at the first hearing now wishing to say something different. It would be contrary to all principles for that to be a ground for a new trial.” (Ladd v. MarshaH (1954) 3 All E .R ., 745)- (7) The Motion Court—Inter Alia. M urn agh an J., at the hearing o f motions, has indicated his views on numbers o f points upon which doubt might otherwise exist. In a settlement of an action in which a company are defendants, the signature o f the secretary is insufficient, as the consent must be so expressed as to bind the company should they tail to pay. In settlements o f actions on behalf o f infant plaintiffs, his Lordship enquires into the reasonable­ ness of the costs. While it is not necessary to vouch items, counsel should be in a position to give some indication as to the outlay. The learned Judge, on one appUcation, stated that if he decided to send the costs for taxation he would add to the infant’s compensation any o f his solicitor’s costs which were in excess o f the figure allowed on taxation. In settlements under the Fatal Accident Damages Acts, 1846 and 1864, it was insufficient merely to aver in the appHcant’s affidavit that certain possible defendants made no claim, but letters of abandon­ ment of their claims should be exhibited.

In applications in default o f appearance or defence, the “ certificate o f proceedings ” should be forth­ coming to show the Court the stage which the action had reached, and the documents properly before the Court. (Irish Law Times). RECENT LEGAL LITERATURE- PART I. (August to December, 1954) Acquitting the Guilty (Goodhart) {L .Q . R ., October, 1954 )- Admission to Practice in Australia (Victoria) (Law Inst. J ., Vic., December, 1954). Administration—Termination of—“ Harvell v. Foster” ( L .T . , 27th August, 1954). Administration o f Estates—French Practice (Brown) (Intern. & Compar. L .O ., October, 1954). Affidavits—Motion to add more defendants— “ McNabb v. O ’Brien” (Murnaghan J.) ( I. L .T ., 4th September, 1954). Admiralty Courts—History o f ( [L .T . , 24th Septem­ ber, 1954). Air and the Law ( T .L .T . , 1st and 8th January, 1955). Arrears o f Annuities—“ Re Cameron ” (S.J., 4th December, 1954). Appearing in Person—Principles applicable (I.L.T ., n th September, 1954). Assize Courts — History o f ( L .T ., 15th October, 1954 )- Bail—-Application rejected during long vacation because opposed by Attorney-General, but special sitting of Court o f Criminal Appeal arranged— “ People (A.G.) v. Thornton” (C.C.A.) (I.L .T ., 2Xst August, 1954). Boxing and the Law ( T .L .T . , 18th September, 1954). Building Reconstructed—Compensation for dis­ turbance—•“ Ryan v. Bradley ” (Murnaghan J.) (I.L .T ., 30th October, 1954). Business Premises—Compensation for Improve­ ments under Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954 (S.J., 27th November, 1954). Clubs ( I.L .T . , 21 st and 28th August, 1954). Constructive Housebreaking— R. V. Boyle ” (L.T., 17th September, 1954). 58