The Gazette 1967/71

(c) To pay £50,000 to each of the children of the settlor, Gay Kindersley (24), Garech Browne (15), and Tara Browne (9) who shall have married before then or before the age of 30. (d) To pay one half of the Trust Fund to such of the children as shall attain 30 in equal shares, the re maining half of the Trust Fund to be paid to such of the children as shall attain 40. If any such children should die before attaining the ages of 30 or 40 leaving issue, such grandchildren shall be entitled to their proper share at 21 years of age. There was a clause which permitted the Trustees to appropriate any interest or share which the Trustee deem reasonable. Another clause gave power to the Trustees to receive remuner ation. Yet another clause (18) provided that all estate, succession or other duties which may be payable on the death of any person in respect of the Trust Fund or his or her interest therein shall be payable out of the capital of the Trust Fund. On 11 October 1954, the Trustees divided the settle ment of October 1954 into six equal parts and approp riated these in satisfaction of the shares of the Trust Fund to which each of the 3 children would become entitled when the attained the ages of 30 years or 40 years respectively. Gay Kindersley married in 1956 and was paid £50,000. On attaining 30 years on June 2, 1960, a one sixth share was duly transferred to him. When Tara Browne married, he was also paid £50,000. In December 1966, Tara was killed in a motor accident, when he was 21; he left a widow and two sons. The Irish Revenue have claimed large sums for estate and succession duty. It was claimed that all these death duties should be discharged out of the total amount of capital held by Trustees in December 1966, and not solely out of the two one-sixth share apropriated to Tara's interest in 1954. It was also claimed that the appropriation of 1954 had the effect of creating six separate trust funds. Kenny J. held that Clause 18 meant that any death duties on the death of any person payable out of the Trust Fund was to be paid out of capital only and not out of income. Therefore the whole Trust Fund is not liable for death duties but only Tara's one sixth shares duly appropriated. The costs of the summons are to be borne as to one third by each of the children equally. [Royal Trust Company (Ireland) Ltd. v. Gay Kinder sley and Others. Kenny J. Unreported. 15 January 1971.] Family [See under Affiliation. Regina v. Gravesend. Justices.] Gaming and Lotteries [See under Club Tehrari and Another v Roston. Q.B.D. The Times, 18 February, 1971.] Guardianship of Infants Application in respect of the custody of three children in a case where the parents were separated. The majority of the Supreme Court (O'Dalaigh C. J., Walsh and McLoughlin J. J.) affirmed Kenny J. in granting custody of the eldest boy of 10, and the girl of 9 to the father, while granting custody of the youngest -boy of 7 to the 256

of impeding the apprehension or prosecution of the thief, the Court said. [Regina v. Brindley. Regina v. Long. Court of Appeal. The Times, 24 February, 1971.] When dismissing an appeal by Surenda Kumar Sakhuja, aged 35, of Hove, against conviction at East Sussex Quarter Sessions of driving with a proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeding the prescribed limit, contrary to section 1(1) of the Road Safety Act, 1967, the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Fenton Atkinson, Mr. Justice Lyell and Mr. Justice Mars-Jones) granted a certificate that a point of law of general public import ance was involved in the decision. The point was whether, on the true construction of section 2(1) of the Act, in cases where a suspicion arises with respect to a person driving while his vehicle is in motion, that person, if immediately pursued by a con stable in uniform, may be required to provide a speci men of breath for a breath test, notwithstanding that at the conclusion of the pursuit he is no longer a person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place. [Court of Appeal. The Times,1) March, 1971.] Car dealers who sold a used car with a false number of miles shown on the milage indicator could not avail themselves of the statutory defence to a charge under the Trade Descriptions Ate, 1968 — that the falsity was due to the act or default of another person — because they had made no record of the milage when they bought the car and had made no inquiries about the milage from previous owners. [Richmond upon Thames, Borough Council v. Motor Sales (Hounslow) Ltd. Q.B.D. The Times, 10 February, 1971.] When giving judgment dismissing an appeal against conviction for causing death by dangerous driving con trary to section 1(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, the Lord Chief Justice said that, so long as the dangerous driving was a cause of the accident and something more than de minimis, the statute operated. Nothing in the statute required the manner of driving to be a sub stantial or major cause of accident. "Substantial" was a convenient word to use to indicate to a jury that it must be something more than de minimis. [Regina v. Harrigon. Court of Appeal. The Times, 26 February, 1971.] Death Duties The Honourable Arthur Guinness executed two settle ments in October 1929 by which the settlor, Lady Oranmore and Browne, would have become entitled to one third of the trust fund if she were alive in October 1954. At that time, in 1954, the settlor made a settle ment by which she assigned and transferred to named trustees one half of the funds to which she would have been entitled under the 1929 settlement, therein after calling the Trust Fund, to hold upon the trusts therein specified — (a) To pay the stamp duty and costs of the deed. (b) To pay the income towards the education and benefit of minors.