The Gazette 1958-61

the judge can, at his discretion, take either of two courses : he can order the plaintiff to pay the costs of both defendants and allow him to recover all those costs from the unsuccessful defendant, so throwing the burden of the bankrupt on the plaintiff, or he can order the unsuccessful defendant to pay the costs of both his co-defendant and the plaintiff direct, so throwing the burden of the bankruptcy on the successful defendant. A plaintiff obtained judgment against the third of three defendants, but the first two defendants succeeded in their defences. Fifteen months before the trial all but £5 IDS. od. of the damages ultimately awarded had been paid into court and the plaintiff knew who the third defendant was, but took no steps to discover his financial standing. He was an undischarged bankrupt. The judge refused to order the third defendant to pay the first two defendants' costs, but ordered the plaintiff to pay them, with recourse against the third defendant. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, Sellers and Willmer L.JJ. Harman L.J. dissenting, held that the judge was exercising a discretion and so his order should not be disturbed but in any case in the circumstances the burden should fall on the plaintiff, not on the first two defendants : Mayer^. Harte(i96o) i W.L.R. 770 ; (1960) 2 All E.R. 840, C.A. Malicious prosecution and false imprisonment—malicious prosecution—unsuccessfulprosecution. In Berry v. British Transport Commission (July 30, 1960) Diplock J. held, that an unsuccessful pro secution for unlawfully, wilfully and without reason able and sufficient cause, pulling the communication cord on a train, contrary to section 22 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1868, did not entitle the person prosecuted to recover damages for malicious prosecution—(1960) 3 W.L.R. 666. Practice—appeal—interventions by judge—submission to Council (July 28, 1960) on December 3, 1959, on the eighth day of the trial of an action before Roxburgh J., in which the plaintiffs claimed damages for nuisance and in junctions against the Middlesex County Council, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the London County Council, in respect of alleged corrosion by sewage effluent to the plaintiffs' Thames barges, the plaintiffs through their counsel, submitted to judg ment for the defendants with costs. The plaintiffs thereupon appealed, asking that the judgment of Roxburgh J. be reversed or set aside, and that a new trial of the action be ordered ; that if and in so far as the decisions or rulings of the judge during the opening of the plaintiffs' case were orders or 54 judgment—application for new trial. In Badcock v. Middlesex Count)1

Court practitioners who secure a copy will rest ^content in the knowledge that this essential volume will considerably lighten their burden. Ever}' solicitor and barrister should have this work in his library, and, if he practises in the District Court, on his desk. District Justice Crotty has long experience of the District Court Bench and, for many a day to come, his colleagues and those who practice before them, will thank him for providing in such easily assimilable form the fruits of his experience and the results of very patient research. C.G.D. ADMISSIONS AS SOLICITORS ist August, 1959 to iistju/j, 1960. Correction to August/September GAZETTE. Name Service with FELTON, DAVID R., FELTON, ROBERT E., 34 Belgrave Road, 18 Eustace Street, Monkstown, Dublin. Co. Dublin. PART-TIME LEGAL AGENCIES The council do not approve of the employment by solicitors of part-time legal agencies except in the recognised field of searches and costs drawing. No other work should be entrusted to a person who is not in the wholetime employment of the solicitor. RECENT DECIDED CASES Libe/—pleadings—defence—striking out parts. (R..S.C. Ord. 19, r. 15.) A defendant in a libel action may, in mitigation of damages, give evidence that the plaintiff bears a bad character in the sense that he has a bad reputation. Evidence must be limited to general reputation and cannot be extended to specific acts. In an action for libel in a film the defendants pleaded justification and in the alternative that in mitigation of damages they would give evidence as to the character of the plaintiff. As particulars under the latter it was alleged that the pictures and words complained of were published as part of the film wherein the plaintiff was depicted as having been guilty of conduct therein set out, " the truth of which the plaintiff, in his amended statement of claim, does not deny ". The guilty conduct was then particularised under the description of various war crimes. Held, that, the defence should be amended so as to omit reference to specific acts of the plaintiff: Speidel v. Plato Films ; Same v. Unity Theatre Society (1960) 3 W.L.R. 391 ; (1960) 2 All E.R. 521, C.A. Costs—Bullock order—unsuccessful defendant bankrupt. Where there are two defendants, one of whom is successful and the other unsuccessful and bankrupt,