The Gazette 1955-58

make a full statement of all his grounds and reasons in order to enable an aggrieved party to ascertain what matters he had taken into account. Per Sachs J.:—" It should be emphasised that the duty of a taxing officer when answering an objection is to make a full statement of all his ' grounds and reasons' in relation to the objection, a duty which may well, as in the present case, entail stating specifically whether or not the matter complained of was taken into account." (Eaves v. Eaves and Powell— (1955) j. All E.R. 849.) Convicted defendant who wins appeal may be awarded costs in the Court below. The appellants were prosecuted under the Food and Drugs Acts for selling food unfit for human consumption, because a loaf contained a piece of string. At the hearing, the justices refused to adjourn the case, although told that" the same point was under appeal in another case, and fined appellants £5. On appeal, the Divisional Court (Lord Goddard, C. J., Ormerod and Barry, J. J.), held that, as the bread was not unfit for human consumption, the appellants were wrongly convicted. In quashing the conviction, this Court held that it had power to order that the costs incurred by the appellants before the justices should be allowed to them. In the circumstances, an order would be made that the appellants recover against the prosecutor the sum of 7 guineas costs. Per Lord Goddard C. J. :—" It does not follow that in every case in which the court sets aside the conviction we should give the successful appellant the costs, but there are two reasons why we think we can give costs in this case. One is, that we think that these prosecutions ought to be launched with much greater care. People ought not to be charged under a section creating a very serious offence when the information ought to have been preferred under another section concerned with the far less serious offence. The other point is, that when this case was coming on before the justices, it was known that Miller's case was under appeal to this court, although it had not actually been entered. Application had been made for a case to be stated, which had been granted, though the case,was not actually set down in the list. I do not know that that is always a good reason for granting an adjournment, because justices might think in some cases it was desirable to get the case on quickly ; but I think it would have been a very good thing in the present case if some further adjournment had been granted in order to find out what was the state of affairs with .regard to Miller's case. " We think, therefore, that in the present case we should say that the defendants in the court

below ought to have something for costs." (Turner & Sons v. Owen —-(1955), 3 IF.L.R., 700.) REVIEW. Glanville Williams — The Proof of Guilt—London, Stevens, 1955, pp. 294, ij/6d. We are once more indebted to Professor Glanville Williams for having given us a clear, accurate and concise picture of a study of the English Criminal trial under the title " The Proof of Guilt " in lectures which he delivered at Birmingham University in October, 1955. The compass of this short and yet exhaustive treatise published under the auspices of the Hamlyn Trust embraces the whole field of criminal practice. The learned author treats of such interesting problems as the evolution of the English trial ; the appointment and training of judges ; the questioning by judges of witnesses ; the right of the accused not to be questioned ; mistaken evidence by identification or by experts ; the admissibility of the evidence and the rule for corroboration of accomplices and children ; the prosecution's burden to prove guilt ; the quantum of proof ; the hearsay rule in criminal cases ; the value of confessions and the exclusion of character and convictions ; circum stantial evidence of similar facts ; character and convictions as evidence for the defence ; the trial together of different defendants ; the jury as a check on unpopular laws ; arguments for and against the jury system ; the growth of summary trial at the expense of jury trial ; the influence of the summing-up ; the inscrutability of the verdict ; the requirement of unanimity ; the absence of appeal by re-hearing ; the function of the jury confined to question of guilt ; and lay or professional justices in magistrates courts. If space permitted it would be of great interest to discuss some of the learned author's views, but the member who acquires this book will find it an invaluable vade- mecum in questions relating to criminal procedure even in the Irish courts ; it is hoped that some of the reforms which Professor Williams advocates so persuasively will soon reach the statute book. THE SOLICITORS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION. i 92nd. Annual General Meeting of the Solicitors' Benevolent Association was held on Friday the ijth day of January, 1956, at the Solicitors' Buildings Four Courts, Dublin. The Chairman, Mr. Richard A. O'Brien, was in the Chair. Mr. Dermot P. Shaw, President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland was among those present. 7°