Page images
PDF
EPUB

Much attention is now being paid to the subject of perjury in Divorce cases. It is the view of the authorities and the judges in the Divorce Court and also that of the Director of Public Prosecutions, that cases of perjury in the Divorce Court are so numerous, so rife, and so flagrant that it is necessary for them to be brought before the Criminal Court in order that persons may appreciate that it is just as serious to give false evidence in the Divorce Court as it is in any other Court.

Mr. W. A. Sharpe, whose year of office as President of the Law Society expired in July last, has died in Switzerland. Mr. Sharpe was a member of the Council of the Law Society for seventeen years, and for many years was Chairman of its Examinations Committee.

Students past and present will regret to hear of the death of the Rev. Seymour F. Harris, whose treatise on the Criminal Law is so well known. The deceased was formerly a practising barrister on the Northern Circuit, but left the Bar for the Church over forty years ago.

Clifford's Inn is once more for sale. It passed into private hands in 1906. A suggestion is put forward by the Solicitors' Journal that effort should be made either by the Inns of Court or by the Law Society, or by both branches of the legal profession acting in co-operation, to recover these famous premises, and devote them to legal uses. They were at one time an Inn of Chancery, i.e., an Inn where Bar students, special pleaders under the Bar, and solicitors resided and studied together without distinction. Clifford's Inn dates from the reign of Edward II., when Baron Clifford, one of the great Border Barons, built it as his town house. In Edward III.'s reign it became an Inn of Chancery. From the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries many famous barristers had their homes in the Inn.

Yours, etc.,

W. E. WILKINSON.

NOTABLE CASES NOTATED.

Divorce Law-Jurisdiction over Foreign Co-Respondent.

Rush v. Rush, Bailey and Pimento,' was a case where a husband petitioned for divorce and named as the alleged adulterers a citizen of the United States and a citizen of Portugal.

The petitioner moved for leave to be excused from making these gentlemen co-respondents on the ground that they could not be found. There was no claim for relief against them.

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, makes it obligatory in the case of a husband's petition that any alleged adulterer shall be made a co-respondent, subject to a dispensing power of the Court upon special grounds. The Act also provides for service of corespondents whether they are to be found within or without the King's Dominions.

The President of the Divorce Division refused to dispense with the statutory requirement.

This was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The contention of the petitioner (appellant) was that a foreign co-respondent resident abroad was entitled to demand, as of right, to be dismissed from the suit; therefore it was unjust that the petitioner should be obliged to serve him. On consideration of the Statute it was held that this contention was not maintainable. "The Court by Statute has assumed jurisdiction over that person." There is no rule of law to the effect that a petitioner is entitled to be excused from serving an alleged adulterer who is a foreigner residing abroad. The matter is in the discretion of the Court. Here the President was not satisfied that the gentlemen in question could not be reached; and the Court of Appeal declined to interfere with the exercise of his discretions in refusing the motion.

1 (1920) p. 242.

C.L.T.-62

The petitioner's motion was made ex parte, but the respondent appeared and claimed the right to be heard.

It was held that, although it was the usual practice for motions of this nature to be made ex parte, there was no rule of practice which prevented respondent from being heard.

Vendor and Purchaser Contract with Common

Mistake.

Forgoine v. Lewis is an important case on the right of enforcing specific performance of a contract for the sale of Real Estate where there was a common error or mistake in the contract and there had been no part performance, nor was there any claim for rectification of the signed contract.

The action was by the purchaser against the Vendor, and the identity of the property sold was admitted by both parties; but the action sought performance of a written contract to sell premises wrongly described, and the defence was that there could be no parol variation of the written agreement.

Woolam v. Hearn as applied in May v. Platt* was relied upon, and no parol evidence of the mistake was tendered.

It was held by Eve, J., that the two cases named had no application to a common mistake of both parties to the contract and he decreed specific perform

ance.

Note The rule laid down in these two cases and also in Davis v. Fitton is that a Court will not rectify a unilateral mistake in a contract and at the same time specifically enforce it, while the case of Forgoine v. Lewis decided that where the mistake is mutual or common to both parties it is competent to the Court to rectify the contract by oral evidence, or by an oral admission, and simultaneously enforce it specifically.

* 1920, Vol. II., Ch. p. 326.

87 Ves. 211.

*1900, 1 Ch. 616.

52 D. & War. 225.

Garage Law-Respondeat Superior.

6

Jefferies & Atkey Co. Ltd. v. Derbyshire Farmers, is certainly a case determinative of liabilities constantly presenting themselves under our new conditions of locomotion.

Jefferies was an owner and the Atkey Co. were lessees of premises used as a garage. The latter company agreed to garage the defendants' motors, and it was a term of the lease that no motor spirits in drums should be brought upon the premises by the defendants. In breach of this a drum of benzol was brought into the garage and while drawing off a quantity from it Booth, a servant of the defendants, struck a match to light a cigarette, with the result that the garage premises were burnt down. Jefferies, whose right to rent ceased with the fire, sued for the loss sustained, and the lessees sued for the loss of the premises.

The question raised was: was the Garage Company, the defendants, liable for the acts of Booth, or was his act outside the scope of his employment.

7

Mr. Justice Horridge, relying on Williams v. Jones, held that the act of striking the match was not within the scope of the employment, but he held there was a breach of the covenant in the lease in bringing the drum of benzol into the garage at all and gave judgment for the plaintiffs.

The following cases of importance were quoted and discussed: Rylands v. Fletcher, Englehart v. Farrant.

Knock-out Auction Sales.

Rawlings v. General Trading Co.10 is a case which seems to be an over-ruling of previous decisions on the same subject, viz.: whether an agreement made by two or more intending purchasers at an auction that they will not bid against one another, but that one

36 T. L. R. 825.
7 3 H. & C. 602.
L. R. 3 H. L. 330.
1897, 1 Q. B. 240.
10 1920, 3 K. B., P. 30.

shall become the purchaser and share the profit result with the other, is an enforceable agreement at law.

The contention in this case was that the agreement was against public policy, and this seems to be supported by Levi v. Levi." But the case of Galton v. Emuss," Heffer v. Martyn,1 and In re Carews Estate1 -favour the view that as between the immediate parties such an agreement is enforceable.

The Common Law Courts in fact held the agreement contra bonos, while the Equity Courts held the contrary. Mr. Justice Sherman, who tried the case now before us, held to his conviction that in this instance the Common Law decisions were right. He said:

"I hold the clear opinion that upon the old Common Law principles this is a contract that it is contrary to public policy to enforce, and where a judge is of that opinion I think he should have the courage to say so.

The contract sued on is unenforceable."

N.B. We look forward with interest to this case reaching the House of Lords, where an emphatic decision on the point would efface this outstanding relic of the antagonism of Law and Equity. Here however Law is right; but it wants the Law Lords to say so.

Costs of Action where Successful Plaintiff is Indemnified by a Trade Union.

Adams v. London Motor Coach Co.15 is a case of some importance and may at any time arise. The Plaintiff was a member of a Trade Union, one of whose privileges was that in any litigation the Union would provide legal assistance for its members. In this case the Plaintiff got his assistance directly through the Trade Union. He did not retain his Solicitors but the Union did it for him. He won his action and got judg ment "with costs." The Defendant raised the ques

116 C. & P. 239.
12 1844, 1 Coll. 243.
13 36 L. J. Ch. 372.

14 26 Beav. 187.

15 1920, 3 K. B., p. 82.

« PreviousContinue »