The Gazette 1958-61

Wintle's case was that that notice enclosed in the letter was calculated to and did deceive him. He said that he looked on it as a writ and that he had suffered great anxiety ; that it was a great shock ; that he had come to London to consult other people; and that he had been put to great expense. His case was that the notice was sent by the London agents espousing the cause of the solicitor at Brighton; that it was done deliberately; bad faith was mentioned and such phrases as "playing with loaded dice", "illegitimate means of warfare", and, in his own affidavit, "immoral and wilful attempt to pervert the course of justice by means of a trick". Colonel Wintle had had some experience of litigation and his lordship himself doubted whether the notice had come as a shock to him, but for the purpose of the proceedings he was prepared to assume that he was horrified. There was not a shred of evidence that the London firm of solicitors were acting in bad faith, or using illegitimate means of warfare, or were intending to mislead or pervert the course of justice. So far from that, it was to be observed that what they did was done on the advice of counsel. The appeal should be dismissed. Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Elwes agreed. The Lord Chief Justice said that in the ordinary case where there was an appeal by a solicitor, names were not mentioned in the Cause List and the press were good enough not to give-the names in case of any prejudice resulting in the event of a successful appeal. That practice had not altogether been followed in the present case and his lordship asked whether anyone minded the names being disclosed. Colonel Wintle said that he did not suppose that his name would be kept quiet . Mr. Broderick said that there was no objection to the names being disclosed. The Lord Chief Justice said that there seemed no good reason for keeping the names out of the press. In re solicitors— The Times, zyth, October, 1960. Innkeeper—motor-car left in garage. In Adams (Durham) v. Trust Houses (1960) i Lloyd's Rep. 380, the plaintiffs left their car in the hotel garage under the direction of the defendant's night porter who, during the night, took the car and wrecked it. Atkinson J., held (i) that there was a contract of bailment; (2) that as the second plaintiff had never been given a garage ticket the clauses on the ticket were not part of the contract; (3) that the night porter's act was a fundamental breach of the contract determining the contract together with any conditions which formed part of it; and (4) that the defendants were negligent in their engagement of the night porter. 66

had only to state that to feel that something had gone very wrong. It was said that the commission of the offences was so serious that, whether he had been guilty of conduct disgraceful in a professional respect or not, his name ought to be removed. But the fact remained that the committee, in considering the penalty, must have taken that finding into consideration. The two offences were driving while under the influence of a drug and dangerous driving. They were undoubtedly serious offences, although it did appear that there were mitigating factors. The appellant suffered from alcoholism. He submitted himself to treatment and in the course of one treat ment was given paraldehyde, and, most unfortunate ly, although it might have cured his alcoholism, it made him an addict of that drug. The medical evidence was that on the day of the offences he was suffering from the drug and just did not know what he was doing. It did appear that he had had previous convictions. They were quite rightly before the committee, but in his lordship's opinion, even taking them into account, it was not a case for the extreme penalty. His lordship would substitute two years' suspension to date from the date of the original findings by the committee in November, 1959. Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Elwes agreed. (In re Hans, The Times, i2th October, 1960) Appeal against dismissal of case by disciplinary committee rejected. The Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Elwes dismissed with costs this appeal by Colonel Alfred Wintle, of Wrotham, Kent, from the findings and order of the Disciplinary Committee refusing his application that the respondent solicitors, practising under the style of Janson, Cobb, Pearson & Co., be struck off the roll, and ordering Colonel Wintle to pay the costs of the application. Colonel Wintle appeared in person ; Mr. Norman Broderick, Q.C., and Mr. Michael Hoare for the respondents ; and Mr. Peter Webster for the Law Society. The Lord Chief Justice, giving judgment, said that Colonel Wintle had had some prolonged litigation in the courts against a solicitor at Brighton, and the respondents had acted throughout as the London agents of that solicitor. In the course of the litigation, and at a time when Colonel Wintle was appealing to the Court of Appeal, he received from them a letter saying that they enclosed therewith a notice requiring him to bring a certain legacy into Court within seven days. The names of the parties were set out and then: " Notice to bring legacy into court". Colonel