The Gazette 1967/71

When considering different expressions of judicial views upon what was required before a contractual in strument might be rectified by the court, their Lordships held that while the law did not require a complete ante cedent concluded agreement, some outward expression of accord between the contracting parties was necessary. Ct, of Appeal 19/12/69 Joscelyne v. Nessen. Purchasers of carpet to be supplied and laid were held not to be liable for the price of carpet delivered to premises in bales which were subsequently stolen. Mr. Justice Mocatta dismissed a claim by the plaintiffs, Philip Head & Sons Ltd., furniture retailers, of Egham, Surrey, for £766, the balance of the price of goods sold and delivered to the defendants. Showfronts Ltd., build ing contractors, engaged in the reconstruction of show rooms in Oxford Street, W. His Lordship considered that the carpet had not been unconditionally appropriated to the contractor in a deliverable state since it had not been laid. Q.B.D. 20/11/69 Philip Head & Sons Ltd. v. Showfronts Ltd. Crime A majority of the Court refused to order a blood test of a child whose parenity was pisputed by its mother's former husband because in a family photograph the child appeared to be coloured. They decided that as the evidence which a blood test would provide on the trial of the paternity issue might show that the former hus band was not the father, the test would not be in the child's interests. Ct. of Appeal W. v. W. Pleas of guilty were made in a magistrates' court by a solicitor on behalf of a defendant who was not asked personally how he pleaded and was sentenced to four years' imprisonment after being committed to quarter sessions for sentence. The Divisional Court quashed the convictions because of an error in procedure under section 13(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, which provides that "on summary trial of an information the court shall, if the accused appears, state to him the substance of the in formation and ask him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty". Ct. of Appeal Regina v. Wakefield Justices Ex Parte Butterworth. Police who stopped a man while he was driving home late at night because they, in a following car, noticed that his rear number plate was not illuminated, and who, during a conversation about that and other matters not connected with his driving, noticed that his breath smelt of alcohol, had no right to require him to take a breath test, for he was not at the time a "person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road" within section 2(1) of the Road Safety Act, 1967; and though, after arguing his rights, he agreed to have a test, which proved, positive, his subsequent arrest and conviction for refusing to provide a specimen of blood or urine was illegal. Ct. of Appeal Pinner v. Everett. Their Lordships held that a written request to identify the driver of a vehicle, signed by a police inspector, was a request "by or on behalf of" the Metropolitan Police

Commissioner within section 232(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Ace, I960, because the commissioner had dele gated his authority to a superintendent with an implied authority for him to delegate it further to the inspector. The Court allowed an appeal by the prosecution against the dismissal by Croydon justices last January of an information against Alan Roe, that being the owner of a motor vehicle, he refused to give information about the driver. Ct. of Appeal 22/10/69 Nelm v. Roe. A police officer had no right to require a breath test from a motorist who had driven off the road on to the forecourt of lock-uup garages near his home after a panda car had overtaken him on the road and signalled him to stop a few moments earlier, Ct. of Appeal 29/10/69 Trigg v. Griffin A hatless constable was "in uniform" their Lordships decided when dismissing an appeal by Ronald Wallwork, a lorry driver, from his conviction by the Manchester stipendiary magistrate of driving with an excess pro portion of alcohol in his blood. The stipendiary found that the constable, who required a breath test under section 2 of the Road Safety Act, 1967, was "not wearing any uniform headgear". Ct. of Appeal 27 / 11/69 Wallwork v. Giles Their Lordships dismissed a prosecutor's appeal and upheld Rugeley justices' dismissal of a charge under the Road Safety Act, 1967, against a man who supervised his learner-driver wife when she was driving, although he had a proportion of alcohol in his blood "substan Under section 3(1) of the Road Safety Act, 1967, the second breath test, the requirement for a specimen for a laboratory test, and its provision must all take place at the same police station. Ct. of Appeal 12/10/69 Butler v. Easton The general principle of admitting evidence of offen ces other than the one charged to prove identity was clearly laid down years ago and has never been expres sed in a number of different phases in subsequent authori ties. Court of Appeal Regina v. Morris. The parents of a girl aged 14 who was absent from school without reasonable excuse for 12 out of a pos sible 114 attendances were held Guilty of an offence under Section 39(1) of the Education Act, 1944, as amended, although they had no knowledge of her ab sences. The Court held that the section created an absolute offence and that such absence amounted to a failure to attend school regularly within the meaning of Section 36. Ct. of Appeal 4/11/69 Crump v. Gilmore. The Divisional Court held that where an accused pleaded guilty before magistrates, was committed to quarter sessions, for sentence and was sentenced, quarter sessions had jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the ground that a statement made by him to the police and which formed part of the prosecution case before the magis trates showed that the guilty plea was equivocal. Ct. of Appeal 10/12/69 Regina v. Tottenham Magis trates Ex Parte Rubens. 86 tially" in excess of the prescribed limit. Ct. of Appeal 23/10/69 Sheldon v. Jones.