The Gazette 1961 - 64

required by themselves or their clients will consider offering them to the P.R.O. for permanent preserva– tion. Not only testamentary documents are of value; copies of legal documents obtained from the P.R.O. before 1922 are of particular interest, as also are rentals of any date earlier than about 1870, deeds not registered in the Registry of Deeds, and almost any original legal documents of pre-i9th century date. Yours faithfully, MARGARET C. GRIFFITH Deputy Keeper. County of the City of Dublin. Pursuant to Order 10, Rule 3 of the Rules of the Circuit Court 1950, as amended by the Circuit Court Rules 1954, I, the Circuit Judge assigned to this Circuit, being satisfied that service (in accordance with Rule 4 of Order 10 of the said 1950 Rules) of Civil Bills and other Originating Documents of the Circuit Court by a duly appointed Summons Server is not practicable in the Summons Server's area of Balbriggan in this Circuit, do hereby direct that for the period of three months from this date, or until the post of Summons Server in that area has been filled, whichever event shall first happen, service of any such Civil Bills or other Originating Documents in said area may be effected by a duly appointed Summons Server to another area in said Circuit, by registered post. Dated this izth day of July, 1961. T. C. CONROY (Copy). Circuit judge. Evidence admissibility—other offences. (Scot) (Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 s.l. (f) (ii).) H.M. Advocate v. Deighan (1961), 77 "Sh. Ct. Rep. 2.6, the Sheriff Court of Midlothian held that the prosecutor could not cross-examine the accused as to his own previous character, although he had attacked the character of prosecution witnesses, because the defence attack was essential to the nature of the defence. Criminal Law—Summing up of Trial. In R. v. Milne (1961) Crim. L.R. 323, the accused CUIRT BHREITHIUNAIS CHUARDA (Circuit Court of Justice) Dublin Circuit. DECISIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST

had been convicted of driving a car whilst under the influence of drink. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that, as nowhere in the summing-up was it said that the burden of proof was on the prosecution, the appeal would be allowed. Restraint of Trade—Public Policy (Singapore). In Thomas Cowan & Co. v. Orme (1960) 27 Malayan L.J. 41, the defendant entered into a contract of service with the plaintiffs who were carrying on business as pest exterminators and fumigators. He covenanted that he would not carry on business on Singapore Island for three years after leaving the employment. He left and broke the covenant. The Singapore High Court held that although the covenant was reasonably necessary for the protection of the plaintiff's business it was against public policy since to prevent the defendant from operating as a fumigator in Singapore would give the plaintiffs a, virtual monopoly. Indemnity—guarantee distinguished. The father of an infant hirer under a hire-purchase contract which was void under the Infants Relief Act, 1874, signed a "Hire-Purchase Indemnity and Undertaking" whereby he agreed with the hire- purchase company "to indemnify you against any loss resulting from or arising out of the agreement and to pay to you the amount of such loss on demand and whether or not at the time of demand you shall have exercised all or any of your remedies in respect of the hirer or the chattels but so that on payment in full by me of my liabilities hereunder I shall obtain such of your rights as you may at your discretion assign to me." The infant defaulted and the father defended a claim against him by the company on the ground that his agreement was a guarantee of an illegal contract and as such unenforceable. Held, that the undertaking was on its true construction an indemnity and so enforceable: Yeoman Credit v. Latter (1961) iW.L.R. 828 (1961) za n E.R. 294, C.A. Hire-Purchase - Exception clause—fundamental breach— series of lesser breaches. It is an implied condition of a contract of hire (and so also of a contract of hire-purchase) that the goods hired are reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are hired, except where the defect is patent and the hirer did not rely on the owner's skill and judgment. The owner cannot escape from a fundamental breach of that condition by an exception clause excluding all conditions whether that breach consists in one major defect or an accumulation of minor defects.