The Gazette 1967/71

which resulted from the withdrawal of support for the wall consequent on the excavation. Dalton v Angus (1881) 6 A.C. 740 established that (1) every owner of land was entitled as against his neighbour to a right of support for his land in its natural state and (2) that the owner of land might also enjoy a right of support for his buildings if acquired by grant or something equiv alent in law to make it a burden on the neigh bour's land. The plaintiff alleged infringement of both rights and negligence. The defendants ad mitted that prior to 1962 the plaintiff' had ac quired an casement of support for the wall but they contended that the plaintiff by superimposing his shed on top of the wall increased the burden on the defendant's land thereby extinguishing the previously cx'sting easement of support. The onus of pioving that the erection caused them prejudice lay on the defendants and they failed to discharge it. With regard to the right at (1) above the bur den was on the plaintiff to show that in the absence of the \vall the defendant's excavation would have resulted in such a substantial collapse of the natural soil as would constitute damage sufficient to found the cause of action by itself. The fall of a few grains of soil would not suffice and in this case there was no substantial collapse and the plaintiff would not succeed on that ground. Thirdly the weight of authority was against the plaintiff's contention based on negligence, for in the absence of an easement of support the owner of land has a legal right to do what he likes with his own land even if this resulted in the collapse Conveyancing, Conditional Agreement The defendants executed a document in 1964 stating that they were "agreeable to the purchase" of fifty-seven acres of the plaintiff's agricultural land for a stated price subject to their obtaining planning permission and to questions of title being approved, the purchase to be completed within e'glit weeks of those conditions being satisfied. The plaintiff signed a document which acknowl edged receipt of £5 "in consideration of my holding the property for you''. It was held that despite the payment of £5 as consideration, the document of 2nd April 1964 was not an option but a conditional contract. It was an implied term of the contract that the conditions be satisfied within a reasonable time to be determined by the Judge by an objective test applicable to both parties and as at the date of his neighbour's building. [Ray v Fairways' Motors and Others, 112 S.J. 925]. (Barnstaple) Ltd.

of the contract. The period t!-at had elapsed was more than reasonable and the plaintiff was en titled to treat the contract as at an end. [re Langlands Farm and The Superior Develop ments Ltd'. 1962 3 All E.R. 552]. Road Works, Contractors' Liability The defendants were carrying out excavation work in a residential street and the plaintiff was injured when, at about 10.50 p.m. his car collided with an obstruction left in the roadway by the defendants. There was evidence that at 8.30 p.m. on the night barriers had been placed round the obstruction and warning lights were in position and the warn ing lights \vere burning. When the accident oc curred, there were no barriers in position or lights burning. The defendant appealed against the decision that they were liable for the accident. It was held that the district, being a quiet residential one, the defendants had taken all reasonable pre cautions—they were under no obligation to arrange for the site to be inspected during the night. Their appeal should be allowed. [Lilley v The British Insulated Callenders Con struction Go. Ltd., Tke Times, 12th November 1968]. Criminal Law There is a strict rule that where a prisoner is unrepresented at his tiial and calls no witness as to fact other than himself the prosecutor is not entitled to make a second speech to the jury. This rule must be strictly followed. In the present case this rule was broken and the conviction was quashed on appeal. [R. v Dorothy Rose Mondon, 52 Cr. App. R. 695]. By an agreement made between builders and sub contractors the latter agreed to roof certain houses, the builders specifying a particular tile made by only one manufacturer. The sub-contractors duly obtained the tiles in the ordinary course of trade and fixed them. Owing to faulty manufacture, the particular tiles used had an undetcctable defect wh'ch made them liable to break in frosty weather. In a contract for the supply of work and mater ials the work must be done with all proper skill and care. The appellants maintained that the warranty in respect of materials is similar to that 101 Work and Labour, Fitness of Materials, Implied Term