The Gazette 1955-58

L.C.J., Hilbery and Stable, J. J.). The vehicle was a goods vehicle as denned by sect. 27 (i) of the 1949 Act and was not within the exemption allowed by sect. 7 (2) of the Finance Act, 1952 (which applies where the vehicle is not used (inter alia) for or in connection with a trade or business). Per Lord Goddard, C.J. :—Therefore, the position is quite clear. These estate car delivery vans are constructed in such a manner that they can be goods vehicles. Being goods vehicles, they would attract the higher rate of duty if they are either used for the conveyance of goods or burden for hire or reward or if they are used for the carrying of goods in connection with a trade or business. If a person has one of these vans and he carries in it nothing except his own luggage, or his own farm produce for his own use and nothing which has to do with his trade or business, he is committing no offence if he licenses it and keeps it licensed at what one may call the private car rate. However, if he does carry goods, that is to say, as it seems to me, anything in connection with his trade or business, at once it becomes a goods vehicle and has to bear the higher rate. (Query would these considerations apply to a vehicle in which a solicitor carries client's papers or a barrister carrying his wig and gown on Circuit?) (Toy/or V. Thompson (1956) i A//E.K. 352.) Land belonging to Irish Company in England ordinarily forfeited to Crown unless it held a licence under the Mortmain Acts need not be maintained by the Cromi until it takes steps to enforce the forfeiture. In 1862, land in Hammersmith was demised for a term of 99 years from 1858. Title to the leasehold interest was registered at the Land Registry with a good leasehold interest in 1917. In February 1953 the leasehold interest was assigned by registered disposition to Arffe, Ltd., for valuable consideration. Arffe, Ltd., was a company incorporated in the Republic of Ireland having its registered office in Dublin. Arffe, Ltd., had not delivered to the Registrar of Companies any documents for regis tration under Part 10 of the Companies Act, 1948, and consequently it had not the power to hold land which an oversea company can acquire under that Part of that Act, nor had it been granted a licence to hold land in mortmain. The Crown had taken no step towards enforcing any forfeiture of the land leased and had not entered on it under the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888, s.i. Held by the House of Lords : (Lords Jowitt, Porter, MacDermott and Cohen, Lord Morton of Henryton dissenting) reversing the Court of Appeal that the assignment to Arffe, Ltd., did not cause an automatic forfeiture of the unexpired residue of

A booklet containing the text of these regulations with a commentary and explanatory notes has been prepared by direction of the Council for circulation to all practising solicitors. The Professional Practice Conduct and Disciplinary Regulations came into operation on ist October, 1955. The Solicitors' Accounts Regulations will come into operation on i st January, 1957. DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST. Waiver ofprivilege in case where witness is cross-examined on statement signed by him and made to other party. A witness for a plaintiff had made a statement to the defendant before the hearing of the case. At the hearing the witness was cross-examined by counsel for the defence. Counsel had in his hand a written statement. He asked the witness whether he had made a statement to defendant and signed it. The witness admitted that he had and, in answer to a further question, admitted that he had stated certain facts in it. Has any privilege attached to such document beeri waived by the cross-examination so as to entitle the plaintiff's counsel to see the whole document? Yes, said the Court of Appeal (Denning, Hodson and Morris, L.JJ.) affirming the ruling of Sellers, J. Denning, L. J., said that where a document was used by cross-examining counsel in this way, he waived the privilege, certainly for that part which was used ; and in a case of this kind if the privilege is waived as to part, it must be waived as to the whole. It would be unfair that cross-examining counsel should use the part which was to his advantage and not allow anyone, even the judge or opposing counsel, to see the rest of the document, much of which might have been against him. (Burnell v. British Transport Commission (1955). 3 A//E.R. 822.) Private car usedfor carriage ofgoods for trade or business is a goods vehicle and subject to higher rate of duty. A company director, who was the owner of a Standard Vanguard shooting brake, used the vehicle for the conveyance of cameras and other photographic equipment in connection with the company's business of photographic printers and freelance photographers. The vehicle was taxed as a private vehicle and no goods licence in respect of it had been obtained. The director was accordingly charged with offences under the Road Traffic Act, I 933> s. i (in respect of the user without a goods licence), the Road Traffic Act, 1930, s. 35 (third party insurance), and the Vehicles (Excise) Act, T 949> s. 13 (tax). Should he have been convicted ? Yes, said a Divisional Court (Lord Goddard,