The Gazette 1964/67

OFFICE RULES FOR DICTATORS 1. Never start work first thing in the morning. Typists much prefer a terrific rush in the late afternoon. 2. Please smoke while dictating. It assists pro nunciation. 3. Do not face the typist while dictating. This would be too easy for her. 4. Hours for dictation : during the lunch hour, and at any time between 4.30 and 5.30 p.m. 5. When dictating please parade up and down the room. Typists can understand what is said more distinctly. 6. Please call in typists for dictation, and then proceed to sort papers, look up old files, telethone and receive calls, etc. 7. Please lower the voice to a whisper when dictation names of people, places, etc., and under no circumstances spell them to the typists. Typists are sure to hit upon the right way of spelling them, they know the name of every person, firm and place in the world. 8. When typists do not hear a word and dic tators are asked to repeat it, shout it as loudly as possible. The typists find this most gentlemanly. Alternatively, dictators should refuse to repeat them at all. The typists have second sight and it may come to them. 9. Whenever possible, dictators should endeav our to keep the typists late. Typists have no homes and are only too thankful for some where to spend the evening. 10. Should a letter require a slight alteration after it is typed, score the word heavily through and through about four times and write the correct word beside it preferably in ink oi' heavy pencil, and always make the alteration on the top copy. Should a typist be too busy or too lazy to take down dictation, please write letters with a blunt pencil in the left hand, whilst blindfolded. Incorrect spelling, balloons, arrows and other diagrams are very helpful to typists. 12. With regard to statements, do not on any account use lined paper. If figures are altered, please write heavily over those previously inserted, the correct figure in each case being the one underneath. Should work be required urgently (a most unusual occurrence) it aids the typist con siderably if the dictator rushes in at intervals of 30 seconds to see if it is done. 11. 13.

time to call to inform counsel what the conductor could say. One was brought to the conclusion that the failure to call the bus conductor was a breach of duty, albeit a technical breach, the plaintiff having wholly failed to satisfy the court that, if the con ductor had been called, he would probably have been acquitted. The managing clerk knew from the depositions that two police officers' evidence was that the plaintiff had made a plain confession and that that evidence had been shaken before the plaintiff could have been acquitted. The court was satisfied that no harm had been done. There would be damages of £2 to the plaintiff. (Scudder v. Prothero & Prothero, Solicitors' Journal, 1st April 1966). Restraint of trade—petroleum products A term of a "solus agreement" which requires a garage proprietor to obtain his supplies of petroleum products only from a particular sup plier for a period of seven and a half years is unenforceable unless it can be shown to be reason ably necessary to protect the supplier's legitimate business interests for so long a period. A supplier obtained an interlocutory injunction against a garage proprietor for contravention of the restriction in such a "solus agreement". On motion to discharge the injunction, held, in the absence of evidence showing that the restriction was necessary for such a period to protect the supplier's legitimate business interests, that the period was too long and the restriction was unen forceable, as it was an unreasonable restraint of trade; accordingly the injunction would be dis charged. (Regent Oil Company v. J. T. Leavesley (Lichfield) (1966) 2 All E.R. 454, Stamp, J.). Master and servant—loan of servant The plaintiff was injured when travelling as passenger in a lorry when a collision occurred through the negligence of the driver. The driver was in the general employment of a partnership who were engaged in sawing timber for the defen dant company. The lorry belonged to the com pany and the plaintiff was picked up while the lorry was being driven on company business. The plaintiff was picked up at the direction of one of the partners in the partnership and he was expected to become employed by the partnership in doing work for the company. Held, that the driver was pro hoc vice in the employment of the company and that the company was liable but not the partnership. (McGregor v. J. S. Duthie & Sons & Co. 1966 S.L.T. 133). the conductor, he was unable

37