The Gazette 1967/71

Lottery Prizes contained in tea packets or coupons offering a motor car in packets contravene the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 and are consequently illegal. Messrs. Lyons & Co. allegedly distributed £500 worth of prizes weekly in various denominations in tea packets. The winner had also to answer the question :— "Which is the largest producing tea country in the world ?" Messrs. Lever Brothers had a scheme whereby 10 Ford Capri cars were to be won, and the coupons were placed in packets of "OMO", and questions had to be answered on the reverse side of the coupon. In the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Bradfute—(1967) 1. A.E.R. 112,—Lord Parker had fully considered the meaning of "lottery" as a distribution of prizes by lottery or chance; the alleged tests in these cases were held to be colourable and could be answered bv some one else other than the finder. According to Bradfute, the scheme there, as in this instance, was separable into two stages; the first, the obtaining of the coupon, which was a question of pure luck, and the second, the puzzle involving a little skill. Held, adopting Bradfute, that no skill was required in the first stage, and the right obtained hereby was something of value and thus constituted in itself a prize. The scheme involved in its first stage a lotterv, which was not contemplated by the 1956 Act. Accordingly District Justice O'Flvnn's decision to convict the defendants and to fine them was correct. Appeal dismissed. (Attorney-General v. Lever Brothers (Ireland'1 Ltd. and Attorney-General v. J. Lyons & Co. (Ireland) Ltd. — Dublin Circuit Court — Judge Noel Ryan — unreported — 6th April 1970). Negligence The Ministry of Transport were held liable in damages to a young man who was paralysed from the chest down after an accident in 1963. c?used b" hi" motor cycle running out of control on a stretch of road where a layer of asohalt which had been laid down to obliterate double white linos had formed ridges along the surface. His Lordship gave judgment for the plaintiff, Mr. John Bright, now aged 25, of Stevenage, Hertfordshire, on a preliminary issue of liability. He had claimed negligence on the part of the Ministry. The final question was whether or not the state of the road was due to the Ministry failing to take proper care. If the work was not properly done it should have been. Bright v. Ministry of Transport, O.B.D. 2/6/'70. Practice Judge nor justified in withdrawing case from jury at the conclusion of Plaintiff's evidence, Plaintiff injured in Mayfield, Cork in August 1967 while travelling as a passenger in a motor van, the property of Defendants; the driver of the van died as a result of the accident. Plaintiff and deceased driver both lorry drivers in the employ of Musgrave Brothers, Wholesale Grocers, Cork. Defendant's wholesale tea merchants of Cork; the deceased used to drive a

Musgrave lorry from Cork to Dublin and back each week. On Saturday, 26th August, 1967, while in Dublin the defendants permitted the deceased driver to drive the motor van from Dublin to Cork, provided it was returned to Dublin by Monday morning. The deceased and the plaintiff visited several nublic houses in the Cork suburbs on the Sunday afternoon. After the accident defendants admitted ownership of the motor van, but denied that the deceased driver was their servant or agent, or acting within the scope of their authority. In Barnard v. Scullv—(47 T.L.R.) — the Court of Appeal held that it was for the jury to determine whether at the material time the car was being driven by his servant or agent and that there was a presumption that the deceased, in driving the van, had acted within the scope of his authority, which would have to be disproved before the jury. Section 118 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 which lays down that if a person uses a mechanically pronelled vehicle with the consent of the owner the driver shall, as regards the user, in the event of liability of the owner for injury caused bv negligence, be deemed to use the vehicle as the servant of the owner, was next considered. Section 118 of the 1961 Art corresponds broadlv with Section 172 of the 1933 Act. It follows that where a consent can be implied, the onus of establishing that it did not apply to the particular user in question in the action shifts to the defendant. There was not sufficient evidence here to show the fact that the deceased driver used the van for private or social purposes prohibited bv the defendants. The anoeal from the decision of the President (Mr. Justice O'Keeffe) with drawing the case from the jury was unanimous!" allowed bv the Supreme Court (O'Dalaigh CJ., Budd and Butler J.J.). (Buckley v. Mussrave Brooke-Bond Ltd.—Supreme Court—unreported—3rd November 1969). Property Where a father bv his will directed that a bungalow belonging to him should be sold and the proceeds divided eauallv between five persons, one of whom was his son who had lived continuous!" in the house before and after the father's death, the son could not assert against the legal owner of the bungalow that he was an equitable tenant in common who could not be turned out in a simple action for vacant possession of the bungalow. Barclay v. Barclay, Court of Appeal, 27/5/70. Resale Price Maintenance The Court, in the last case under the Resale Act, 1964, found that resale price maintenance on medicines and drugs was in the public interest and accordingly made orders declaring that ethical and proprietary pharmaceutical products were exempt from the general ban on resale price maintenance imposed by the Act. It was held that without resale price maintenance, wholesalers would not hold such a wide range of ethical drugs as at present so that there would be a substantial reduction in varieties available for sale to the "ublic, and that with price competition on proprietary drugs supermarkets would take a greater share of the market 37