The Gazette 1967/71

if they were at home. Such a visitor should not have more than a very limited number of children to look after. We are greatly concerned that there appears to be no provision whatsoever for non-Catholic children in the State, whether they are delinquents or destitute children deprived of their homes. This is completely unconstitutional and utterly unjust. If there were only one such child it is an inescap able obligation of the State to make precisely the same provision for that child as they would for a child of any other faith. It is accepted that there may be very few children of the Protestant faith or of the Jewish faith but it is believed that the statistics available are not reliable in as much as no committals are made of such children because there is no place for them to go. If there were a place for them to go undoubtedly many more cases would come to light. In any case the number of cases is quite beside the point. Under the Constitution and in justice equal provision must be made for all and this is a matter of the utmost urgency. The members of the Sub-Committee are John B. Jermyn, Patrick Noonan, W. A. Osborne. CASES OF THE MONTH Liability for Animals. P and E brought their dog into licensed premises. The dog which was normally quiet was lying alongside or under the stool of either G or E for most of the evening but wandered round the premises on two or three occasions without the knowledge of G or E, returning to the stool. When leaving the premises the plaintiff tripped over the dog and sustained injuries. Proceedings were issued against G and E and also the owner of the licensed premises. It was held that the Licencee was not negligent there being no general principle that dogs ought not to be allowed into licenced premises or that dogs should be required to be on a lead. The position might be different where the licencee had reason to believe that the dog might be a nuisance of itself, or might behave in such a way that it could lead to an accident. In regard to G and E there is a principle that if a person brings a dog into any confined space there is a duty to take reasonable care that persons are not injured by the dogs conduct (see Andrews v Patullo, The Times 16th December, 1955). The liability depends on whether or not there is a duty on the person bringing the dog into a Public House to keep aconstant eye on the dog: in this case there

was no reason to believe that the dog would wan der and there was no evidence that the dog had a tendancy to get into mischief. The plaintiff's claim failed as he had not proved the conduct of G and E fell short of the required standard, i.e. that they did not take reasonable care for the safety of others. Carroll v Garford and ors. 112 S.J. 244. Contract, subject to Planning Permission A contract was entered into "conditional upon planning consent being granted by the local authority, following upon the application already lodged, for use of the subjects of sale as a Hotel and if such consent is not granted the purchaser will be entitled to resile from the contract". Planning consent was granted subject to conditions (l)that before any alterations are commenced approval of the Council should be obtained (i.e. as Building Authority). (2) that the private access onto the public road bs improved together with the provision of adequate visability splay to east of the access. To comply with the first condition would involve considerable expense. The expense involved in complying with the second condition was negligable. The Vendor sued for speciec performance of the Contract. It was held that the condition that Planning consent be granted had been satisfied and that the conditions imposed by the local authority as the building authority as opposed to those imposed in their capacity of Planning Authority had noth ing to do with the Vendor. The conditions as to access and visibility were very small and did not affect the matter. .Richard West & Partners (Inverness) Ltd., and Anor. v Dick. 1969 f All. E.R. 943. Estate Agent, Payment of Deposit An Estate Agent arranged land "Subject to Contract" and accepted a deposit from the Purchaser on that basis. No contract was ever entered into and subsequently the Agent became insolvent. The Purchaser sued the Vendor for the amount of the Deposit and it was held that the vendor was liable to repay the deposit to the Purchaser since the deposit had been accepted by the Agent as agent for the Vendor. It was remarked obiter that even if the Agent had been regarded as a stakeholder the risk of his involvency would still fall on the Vendor. Coding v Frazer (1967) 1 W.L.R. 286. Estate Agent, Commission. The Plaintiff, an Estate Agent, undertook to sell a grocer's business for the defendant on terms 11 the sale of