The Gazette 1967/71

would call evidence on his behalf. In effect he was making a submission of no case in reserving the right to call evidence thereafter. The Justices might well ask the defendant, "Are you making a final speech or are you making a submission and reserving the right to call evidence thereafter?". An answer to that ques tion would not allow any confusion. (Regina v. Gravesend Justices, Ex parte Sheldon. Times, June 27, 1968). Contract P. and D. entered into two agreements under which D. was called the lessor and P. the lessee of property owned by D. Under the first P. was to apply for planning permission for develop ments of sites; a survey would be made after permission was granted, and provisions made for demolition and rebuilding in 2| years. In any event by October 31st 1965 D. should grant P. a lease of the property for 999 years at £5,000 per annum subject to review. By the supple mental agreement P. promised to lend D. £20,000 at 4 per cent, simple interest for a period equal to the time taken by the development and in any event for not less than two years. If a third party refused to enter into the redevelop ment scheme within twelve months interest would be at 10 per cent, from May 15th, 1965. The money was duly advanced and secured by a legal charge which recited the agreement to develop and take a lease and provided that if the agreement became null and void, interest as from May 15th 1965 should be at 10 per cent and should accrue but not be payable until October 31st, 1965. The third party co-operated but planning permission was refused. P. gave D. notice to repay on June 4th 1966. D. contended they were not liable until they, D., had taken up the new lease and counterclaimed Specific Per formance of the agreement to take the lease with arrears of rent. Held (1) that an officious bystander would say, if asked, what would happen if planning permission was refused, that the deal was off. (2) that the Court was not satisfied that the doctrine of frustration could not apply to an agreement for a lease; (3) that this was a case of supervening events and a term should be implied making the agreement conditional upon P. obtaining planning permission; (4) that the provision for increased interest depended on the lease coming into being and so was inoperative; (5) that P. was entitled to the £20,000 at 4 per cent, interest as legal mortgagee.

(Rom Securities v. Rogers (Holdings)

[1967]

1968 5 G.L. 74). Citing Authority

A defendant was charged with permitting her son to drive a car without third party insurance con trary to The Road Traffic Act. Her husband was the registered owner of the car and the defence submitted that there was no case to answer be cause only a registered owner could be guilty of the offence charged. Against that the Justices were referred by the prosecution to Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences (fifth edition page 202) but the defence contended that unless the Justices were referred to the actual case that was authority for a statement in a text book they could not be referred to the text book itself. The prosecutor did not have the case to hand. The Justices dismissed the information on the ground that there was no case to answer. It was held on appeal that the Justices were entitled to and should have looked at the text book and if they than felt that it was necessary to look at the actual authority, if necessary adjourning the pro ceedings for that purpose. (Boys v. Blenkinsopp : The Times, June 25th, 1968). Nuisance—obstruction of a river by exposed sewer. A sewer was by agreement and by statutory authority built across a river and in the river bed in such a way that it would not interfere with the flow of water in the river. Without any fault on the part of any person, the river bed was washed away and the sewer pipe became exposed, causing eddies in the flow of water which damaged the plaintiffs land. The defen dant Council was sued inter alia on the ground of common law nuisance by interference with the flow. Held. The burden of proof lay on the council to justify the presence of the obstruction in the river but something which had begun by not being a nuisance could not become one merely by lapse of time; moreover, the plaintiffs when they acquired the land, took the river bed as it was and the Council had not altered it since then. (Radstock Co-operative and Industrial Society v. Norton-Radstock U.D.C. [1968] 2. All E.R 59). Solicitor for Defendant—Whether accountable to Plaintiff for fees pa\d out of plaintiffs assets Plaintiffs, an East German company, in 1955 had 30