The Gazette 1967/71

charging him with contravening Section 1 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, in obtaining £25 from a buisnessman. An appeal to Glamorgan Quarter Sessions was dismissed last November. Section 1 (1) provides : "If any agent corruptly obtains . . . from any person . . . and . . . consideration as an inducement . . . for doing . . . any act in relation to his principal's affairs ... he shall be guilty . . ." [Morgan v Director of Public Prosecutions; Q.B.D.; The Times, 20 October 1970.] In the offence of dishonestly obtaining property by deception, the element of dishonesty need only be proved, in addition to the other ingredients, where the deception was made recklessly as opposed to deliberately. [Regina v Potger; Court of Appeal; The Times, 20 October 1970.] The conviction of a motorist for driving with excessive blood-alcohol was quashed because the jury who con victed him had not been directed that, if they accepted the defence version of the events, he could not have been driving at the time when police suspected him of having alcohol in his body and required him to provide a breath test specimen. FRegina v Garforth; Court of Appeal; The Times, 9 October 1970.] Damages Because a passenger whose brain was severely injured in a car crash failed to prove that he was incapable of managing his affairs in relation to the accident a month after it happened, he did not succeed in recovering damages assessed at £19,000 on his claim against the driver. Negligence was not disputed. The action was begun a month outside the three years limitation period. [Penrose v Mansfield; Q.B.D.; The Times, 8 October 1970.] When the court has a discretion to award interest to a party to proceedings who has received full indemnity for his loss from his insurers, it must look at the reality of the matter and consider whether any such award could be retained by the assured party or could be claimed by the insurers by subrogation. [H. Cousins and Co. v D. and E. Carriers Ltd.; Court of Appeal; The Times, 4 November 1970.] Disciplinary Proceedings Any suggestion that a pharmaceutical service com mittee would be incapable of hearing a case against a company of dispensing chemists because they had been "pilloried" in an article in The Sunday Times about drug substitution was abandoned when the court heard an application for an order prohibiting the committee from proceeding. Their Lordships refused the application of Gordon D. Conway Ltd., trading as Bright's Dispensing Chemists, of Willesden. After adjourning the case overnight the court ordered that the committee should not proceed to their hearing until twenty-eight days after the applicants had been provided with agreed

further particulars of the case against them. The appli cants were ordered to pay costs. [Regina v Pharmaceutical Service Committee ex parte Gordon D. Conway Ltd.] See under Medical Practitioner, Faridian v G.M.C. Document—non est factum The House of Lords the whole doctrine involved in the plea of non est factum, namely, the circumstances in which a person who has signed a docu ment in the belief that it is one having a different effect can say that the document is a nullity. [Saunders (formerly Gallia) v Anglia Building Society; House of Lords; The Times, 8 November 1970.] Family The courts should not dictate to a parent having custody of the children of a dissolved marriage what his future life should be. Therefore, where the parent's desire to emigrate to Australia does not conflict with the wel fare of the children he should have the same right to emigrate as everybody else. [T v T; Court of Appeal; The Times, 4 November 1970.] A husband who was joint owner with his wife of the matrimonial home and who deserted her was held not to be entitled to an order against the wife under Section 30 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, unless he provided alternative accommodation for her. Section 30 provides that if the trustees for sale refuse to sell or to exercise any of their powers or if any requisite consent cannot be obtained any person interested may apply to the court for a vesting or other order for giving effect to the proposed transaction or for an order directing the trustees for sale to give effect to it, and the court may make such order as it thinks fit. [In re Hardy's Trust; Sutherst v Sutherst; Ch. Div.; The Times, 23 October 1970.] Persistent dishonesty by a wife which causes her husband acute embarrassment and anxiety is cruelty. [Stanwick v Stanwick; Court of Appeal; The Times, 24 October 1970.] The test of whether a mother is unreasonably with holding consent to the adoption of her child is an objective one, namely, what a reasonable mother would do in all the circumstances of the case. One factor to be considered by the reasonable mother is the child's future welfare. Unreasonableness does not involve any misconduct or blameworthiness on the mother's part. The court, in reserved judgments, refused to follow dicta that to establish unreasonableness on the mother's part there must be some element of culpability on her part. \In re B (an infant); Court of Appeal, The Times, 4 October 1970.] See under Matrimonial, Meyer v Meyer. 145 reviewed