The Gazette 1967/71

Gaming and Lotteries A facia-board shop sign bearing a company's name which incorporated the words "turf accountants" was not an advertisement "indicating that any particular premises are a licensed betting office", contrary to Sec tion 10 (5) (a) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963. [Maurice Binks (Turf Accountants) Ltd. v Huss; Q.B.D.; The Times, 7 November 1970.] • The Queen's Bench Divisional Court (the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Browne) granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords after refusing an application for a writ of habeas corpus to secure the release of Patrick Keane, a former mem ber of the I.R.A. and a leading member of Saor Eire (Free Ireland), which had "excited considerable and persistent interest and attention of the Irish police and government". He was committed to Brixton prison pending his return to the Republic of Ireland by the Old Street magistrate in August under the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act, 1965, on charges of murdering a policeman in Dublin and armed robbery in Co. Wicklow this year. [R v Brixton Governor, ex parte Keane; Q.B.D. (1970); 3 AER 74.] Insurance A motorist who recovers an award of £3,100 and costs, but who fails to notify the insurance company of the other party of such motor accident in time in accordance with the conditions of the other party's policy which are declared conditions precedent to the liability of that insurance company, cannot subsequently recover from the liquidator under the Insurance Act, 1964, if that insurance company is subsequently wound up. [Re Equitable Insurance Co.—Application of John Butler—Supreme Court (Budd, Fitzgerald, MacLoughlin J. J.) affirming Kenny J.; Unreported; 13 Nov. 1969.] Landlord and Tenant The tenant of leasehold premises which now consist of a groundfloor shop and living accommodation on three floors above is not disqualified from acquiring the free hold under the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967, merely because years ago the shop part was joined up with the shop next door by knocking a hole in the party wall. [Peck v Anicer Properties Ltd.; Court of Appeal; The Times, 15 October 1970.] Local Authority Redbridge London Borough Council, who had allowed a street trader to obstruct the free passage of a highway for several years before they eventually prosecuted him, could not be held to have granted him a licence to com­ Habeas Corpus

mit the offence and were not debarred from prosecuting. [Redbridge London Borough Council v Jaques; Q.B.D.; The Times, 21 October 1970.] A local authority, in order to establish a defence under Section 1 (2) of the Highways (Miscellaneous Provi sions) Act, 1961, to an action for damages resulting from their failure to maintain a highway, only need to show that their method of inspecting the highway was reasonable, even though it might have been practicable to inspect it more frequently than in fact was done. [Pridham v Hemel Hempstead Corporation; Court of Appeal; The Times, 30 October 1970.] Local Government Plaintiff, lady of sixty-three, claims damages for mis feasance. The defendants are alleged to have defectively constructed a footpath in Bray in 1937, so that a sub sidence which led to the cracking of the concrete surface, was alleged to be negligent. By reason of the state of the footpath, the plaintiff fell and sustained injuries in October 1961. As the jury concluded, in response to the only question submitted to them, that the defendants in the construction of the footway had acted reasonably, and exercised care and skill, Murnaghan J. gave judg ment for defendants. It had been proved that in the construction of the footpath the defendants failed to provide a hard core foundation beneath the concrete slabs. Although there was no reference in the evidence to the high cost of providing hard core, Murnaghan J. referred to it as important in his charge. He declined to recall the jury a second time. The Supreme Court (6 Dalaigh C.J., Walsh and Fitzgerald J. J.) held that the jury ought not to have been invited to attribute to the defendant's decision an element that was irrelevant. The second ground of appeal arose out of the evidence of the defendant's engineer to the general effect that one of the causes of foundation settlement in footpaths is the additional load thrown upon them by motor vehicles mounting the footpath. Murnaghan J. in referring to this in his charge, did not draw the jury's attention to the fact that there was no evidence that the damage to the footpath in this particular instance was in any way atributable to motor traffic, despite counsel's request to re-instruct the jury on this point. This should have been clearly stated to the jury. The Supreme Court accord ingly set aside the verdict and judgment, and directed a new trial. [Kirwan v Bray U.D.C.; Supreme Court; Unreported; 30 July 1969.] Master and Servant Apprentices in the woodworking trade under deeds of apprenticeship for five-year periods, which in terms contemplate assigning the apprentice to another master, are not "continuously employed" for the purpose of payments under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, if during the apprenticeship they have more than one master. [Lee and another v Barry High Ltd.] 146