The Gazette 1967/71

the defence witnesses to give evidence before the applicant; the deputy chairman ruled that she should give evidence first. She was convicted. On an application for leave to appeal, on the ground that the deputy chairman had erred in law in refusing to allow the defence counsel to call his witnesses in the sequence he chose and insisting that the accused give her evidence first— held, dismissing the application that it was the general practice, with rare exceptions, that an accused person who was to give evidence should be called before other defence witnesses; and that the general practice was correct and should be followed. Dicta of Lord Alverstone, C.J., in Rex v Stinie Morrison (1911) 6 CR. App. Rep. 159, 165, C.C.A. applied. [Regina v Smith (Joan), Court ol Appeal (1968) 1 W.L.R. p. 636. (1968) 2 All E.R. 115]. Excessive user of easement By conveyance dated October 1961 the then owner of a large agricultural estate conveyed part of it to the plaintiff, a farmer, together with "the right of way at all times and for all purposes over the driveway . . . leading to the main road, in common with all other persons having the right". In June 1966 the plaintiff obtained planning per mission to use part of his land as a tourist cara van and camping site for up to 200 caravans and/ or tents from 1st April to 31st October in each year, with the condition that no caravan should remain on the site for more than three weeks. The permission was granted on the basis that the right of way would be used for access to, and egress from the main road between two Cornish tourist centres. Access to the drive, which was bordered by trees, was through entrance gates ten feet apart. It was widened out to about fifteen feet in the first stretch of 180 yards, which was also used and owned by two neighbouring landowners, one of whom used it for farm vehicles. They objected to the proposed user for caravan traffic and put up notices warning campers off. The plaintiff brought an action, claiming against them, inter alia, that the grant by its terms permitted the proposed user, and requiring the notices to be removed. Tin- defendant users counterclaimed for an injunction in quia timet terms to restrain the user of 200 units on the ground, inter alia, that it would be • excessive and a nuisance. At the trial evidence was given about the probable user by occupants of 200 camping un : ts. The county court judge held that the plaintiff had established his right to the proposed user and refused the injunction.

There is abundant authority for the view that tin- Court had jurisdiction to grant relief notwith standing the fact that the decree might only be recognised in the country where it was granted and might not be binding on the Courts of the petitioner's residence and domicile. [Magnier v Magnier; S.J., Vol. 112, No. 12, p. 233]. Solicitor: Continuous practice The plaintiff was a solicitor who had com menced practice in 1960. On four occasions in the years 1961-66 he was late in taking out his practis ing certificate. On these occasions a certificate was not issued to him until after the 15the December in the relevant year and was therefore not retrospec tive to the date of expiration which was 16th Nov ember of the previous year. The plaintiff wished to take an articled clerk but registration was refused on the grounds that he had not been in continuous practice for a period of five years as required by Section 41 (1) Solicitors Act, 1957. It was held that the plaintiff's practising certificate had been issued after 15th December and in the years in question he had for a short period not been quali fied lawfully to act as a solicitor and therefore had not been in practice for a continuous period of five years. [Adlani v Law Society; 1968, 1 WLR 6, 1 AER 17]. Receiving stolen goods, explanation Accused charged with larceny and receiving a Volkswagen car in Co. Galway. Direction on lar ceny charge but accused convicted of receiving and sentenced to twelve months imprisonment— Court of Criminal Appeal allowed appeal in March 1967 and gave reasons in May 1967. The car was taken from Messrs Linders at night and consequently stolen—the Court did not decide whether admissibility of registration book was es sential. Circuit Court Judge Durcan misdirected the jury by stating that if they considered that the explanation given by the accused might not reasonably be true this meant that the state had proved its case. The jury should have been told that if they thought that his explanation might reasonably be true, even if not convinced of its truth they should acquit the accused—appeal allowed, new trial directed. [People (Attorney General) v James Melody]. Order of Witnesses The applicant was charged with driving a motor vehicle whilst unfit to drive through drink or drugs. At the trial her counsel sought to call on