INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(658, 'THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF  THE METHODIST CHURCH, GHANA  VRS.  1. SAMUEL AFFOTEY TETTEH  2. IBRAHIM SIBIE & CO. LTD.    3. ETS DELTA GROUP (GHANA) LTD', '', 'links/cases/THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF METH CH  v. SAMUEL AFFOTEY TETTEH & 2 ORS..pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', '1  \r\nIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRIMES COURT I, ACCRA, HELD ON TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016, BEFORE HER LADYSHIP GEORGINA MENSAHDATSA, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT. \r\n                  SUIT NO.: FAL 221/2011 \r\nTHE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF  THE METHODIST CHURCH, GHANA                        -        PLAINTIFF \r\nVRS. \r\n1. SAMUEL AFFOTEY TETTEH             2. IBRAHIM SIBIE & CO. LTD.                -        DEFENDANTS    3. ETS DELTA GROUP (GHANA) LTD.              \r\nCONSENT JUDGMENT: \r\nThe terms of settlement dated 22nd June, 2016, and filed on the 1st of September, 2016, are hereby adopted as the consent judgment of the court. They are as follows: “1. The 3rd defendant shall pay the plaintiff the sum of US$750,000.00 (seven hundred and fifty thousand United States Dollars) or its cedi equivalent at the prevailing forex exchange selling rate at the time of payment as the price of the land the subject-matter of this suit. 2. The 3rd defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of US$750,000.00 as the price for the land in the following manner: 3. The 3rd defendant shall pay a deposit of US$150,000.00 on or before the 31st of July, 2016, or the date of the execution of the Terms of Settlement (whichever is earlier). (The plaintiffs hereby acknowledge receipt of the sum of US$150,000.00). 4. Thereafter 3rd defendant shall pay the sum of US$110,000.00 every quarter as follows: i. US$110,000.00 on or before the 31st of October, 2016. ii. US$110,000.00 on or before the 31st of January, 2017. iii. US$110,000.00 on or before 30th of April, 2017. iv. US$110,000.00 on or before 31st of July, 2017. v. US$110,000.00 on or before 31st of October, 2017. 5. The balance of US$50,000.00 shall be paid on or before the 30th of November, 2017. 6. In case of default on the part of the 3rd defendant the whole outstanding amount shall become payable with interest at the prevailing commercial rate of interest. 7.  The 3rd defendant hereby indemnifies the plaintiff from all costs and counterclaims of the other defendants including that of the 1st & 2nd defendants in this suit and hereby undertakes to satisfy any such counterclaim. 8. The 3rd defendant shall bear all costs and expenses relating to the preparation, stamping and registration of the documents transferring the land from the plaintiff to the 3rd defendant. \r\n9. Subject of Clause 7 herein, the plaintiff shall discontinue the action against the other defendants. \r\n2  \r\n10. These terms of settlement shall be subjected to the usual default clause. 11. These terms of settlement contain the entire understanding of the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant herein. \r\n12. The terms herein shall be adopted as consent judgment and there shall be no costs awarded in favour of any party.”   \r\nGEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)   \r\nCOUNSEL: \r\n1. Mr. Kwamena Baiden for Plaintiff. 2. Mr. Musah Ahmed for 3rd Defendant.    ', 'GEORGINA MENSAH-DATSA, J', 'Civil', '', 'FAL 221/2011', '', '', '', '2016-12-06', ''),
(659, 'ABDUL AZIZ & ANO. v. MOHAMMED SHAMSHUDEEN ARMIYAOU', '', '', 'No', 'Aryeetey, J.A. , Akoto-Bamfor (MRS),  J.A. , Asare-Korang, J.A.', '2004', 'Supreme', 'JUDGMENT\r\n\r\nAKOTO-BAMFOR, J.A.\r\n\r\nIn this appeal, the appellant who was the defendant in the court below, shall be referred to as the defendant whereas the respondent who was plaintiff therein shall simply be referred to as the plaintiff.\r\n\r\nOn the 13th of December 2002, the High Court entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant upon an application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the High Court Civil Rules as amended by L.I. 1129.\r\n\r\nThe Court granted all the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons and statement of claim. It is against this decision that the defendant lodged this appeal in this Court.\r\n\r\nIn order to appreciate the issues raised, I deem it necessary to set out in brief the events culminating in this appeal.\r\n\r\nOn the 17th of July 2002, the plaintiff took out a writ of summons claiming against the defendant the sum of $5400 being money the defendant collected from the plaintiffs on the grounds of securing them a United States visa but which he failed to do.\r\n\r\nInterest on the said amount from 1st December, 2001 to date of judgment. In the accompanying statement of claim the plaintiff averred that the defendant collected a total amount of $5400 from him in order to secure for him a visa; that when the defendant gave him the passport and he attempted to travel with same, it was detected that the visa was fake. He therefore asked for a refund of the monies paid.\r\n\r\nOn the 23rd of September, 2002 the defendant filed a defence; the gist of which was that there was an agreement between him and the plaintiffs under which he was to procure a passport, an American visa, a ticket and other charges at a total cost of $6000; the breakdown being $3000 for the visa, $100 for the passport, $1500 for the ticket, hotel and service charges amounting to $1400. In all he received $3414 and ¢500,000. According to him he had refunded an amount of $1,300 to the plaintiff and was therefore not entitled to the sum stated on the face of the writ.\r\n\r\nOn the 13th of November, 2002 the plaintiff filed an application for summary judgment under order 14 of the High Court Rules as amended by L.I. 1129 for the sum of $5400 together with interest; an affidavit in opposition was filed virtually restating the averments in the decision filed.\r\n\r\nOn the 13th of December 2002, the learned Judge gave his decision in these terms “Upon hearing learned Counsel and reading the affidavit in support of the motion and reading through the affidavit in opposition the application is granted as prayed. Costs of 2 Million Cedis awarded against the defendant."\r\n\r\nThe defendant grounded his attack against the decision on these 2 grounds: [a] that the judgment cannot be supported by the plaintiff’s claim with regard to the defence filed by the defendants. [b] The defendant was not heard by the Court before judgment was given.\r\n\r\nLearned Counsel for the defendant submitted that the learned judge fell into an error when he entered judgment for the full amount even though it was clear from the defence filed that the defendant had refunded an amount of $800 dollars before the said judgment.\r\n\r\nHe further argued that since the defendant averred in both his defence and affidavit in opposition that he did incur some legitimate expenses which he was entitled to deduct and of which averment there was no denial, triable issues were raised and the defendant ought to have been given leave to defend.\r\n\r\nIn the indorsement to the writ, the plaintiff claimed the sum of $5,400 together with interest and asserted in the accompanying writ of summons and statement of claim that they represented monies paid to the defendant for the purposes of securing him a visa to the United States of America.\r\n\r\nAccording to the plaintiff the visa which the defendant subsequently handed over to him was fake and hence the refund.\r\n\r\nIn the defence, the defendant did not essentially deny having received the sum stated in the indorsement but claimed it represented part payment for various services, which he was to render for the plaintiff. According to him he charged the sum of $6000 for the services to be provided which included a ticket, a passport, a visa and a hotel accommodation and that since he performed all the services with the exception of the visa which the plaintiff alleged was fake, he was entitled to deduct his legitimate expenses from the sum claimed. It was his case that he had refunded an amount of $800 at the relevant time and therefore amount appearing on the face of the writ was not accurate.\r\n\r\nThe statement of defence was filed on the 23rd of September, 2002. In the said defence 2 issues were raised: [1] that the defendant had refunded part of the money [2] that he had pleaded the defence of a set off.\r\n\r\nIn paragraph 6 of the defence the defendant averred that he had refunded $800 out the amount, significantly this averment was not denied. It is trite learning that any allegation of fact, which is not traversed, is deemed admitted. If indeed the defendant had refunded part of the amount, it is clear that judgment could not properly have been entered for the amount stated on the face of the writ, for it is settled that where judgment is entered for an amount greater than what is actually due; it must be set aside ex debito justiciae; Halsbury’ Laws of England 4th edition Vol. 26 paragraph 559. This position was restated in Morkor vrs. Kuma 1998-99 SC. GLR page 620 where it was held inter alia that this was apart from any consideration of whether or not the defendant has a good defence on the merits. More importantly the issue which confronts me in this appeal, is whether the learned Judge rightly exercised his discretion in entering judgment for all the reliefs and thereby refusing the defendant leave to defend.\r\n\r\nOrder 14 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules as amended provides the procedure for obtaining summary judgment without proceeding to a full trial. It is a means of expeditiously disposing of cases, which are virtually uncontested, and thereby avoiding a full trail with its attendant delays.\r\n\r\nAmong the conditions precedent for a plaintiff employing the summary process are [1 the defendant must have entered appearance [2. The statement of claim must have been served on the defendant [3 and relevant for our purposes, the affidavit in support must contain a statement of the deponent’s belief that there is no defence to the claim or part thereof in respect of which the application is made.\r\n\r\nThe plaintiff must therefore proceed under Order 14 only on grounds that the defendant has no defence to the claim since evidently the purpose is to enable a plaintiff obtain summary judgment where he can prove his claim clearly and if the defendant is unable to set up a bonafide defence or raise on issue against the claim which ought to be heard.\r\n\r\nIn the case under consideration, the defendant did essentially admit part of the claim; made a refund but however asserted that he was entitled to deduct his legitimate expenses. That he could not be said to have clearly admitted owing the whole amount stated in the endorsement and therefore a full trial was unnecessary is evident; nonetheless the learned Judge entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the full amount. I am of the view that the learned Judge fell into an error for it is trite learning that where part of a claim is clearly due by admission or otherwise, while a defence is shown as to the residue, the Court should enter judgment for the sum due and give leave to defend as to the residue. Lazarus vrs. Smith 1908 2KB 266.\r\n\r\nSince the defendant admitted and proceeded to make a refund with respect to part of the claim and pleaded the defence of a set-off, triable issues were raised and he ought to have been given leave to defend with regard to the reside. Indeed both the defence and the affidavit in opposition clearly articulated what the defence was. The appeal accordingly succeeds on this ground. With regard to the 22nd ground-namely that the defendant was not heard, learned Council submitted that judgment was given in the absence of both the defendant and his counsel without hearing notices being served on them.\r\n\r\nA look at record of proceedings shows that the summons for summary judgment was filed on 13/11/2002 and fixed for hearing at 9.0’clock on 2nd December, 2002. It is evident from the record that both the defendant and his counsel were absent on the 2nd of December, 2002. The Court, it appears did not make any order for hearing notices to be served on them after having adjourned the hearing of the application to the 9th of December 2002.\r\n\r\nSomehow the defendant must have gotten wind of the date, for he did surface in court on the adjourned date. The entries made by the learned Judge on the 9th of December 2002 attested to this fact. There was nothing on record to show that the defendant’s counsel was in court. The matter was again adjourned to the 13th of December 2002. Both the defendant and his counsel were however absent.\r\n\r\nEven though the Court failed to make an order for hearing notices to be served on the defendant and his counsel on the 2nd of December, the fact that the defendant was in court on the 9th albeit without his counsel was indicative of the fact that he had notice of the proceedings slated for the 9th. It could be argued that since the Court failed to make an order that they be notified of the hearing date the proceedings heard in their absence were a nullity. As noted the defendant was in court and was therefore aware of the adjourned date i.e. the 13th, it was therefore incumbent upon him not only to be in court but also to have duly informed his counsel of the hearing date. When therefore the defendant chose to absent himself from court despite the fact that he was aware of the date, can be heard to complain that he was not given a hearing? I think not.\r\n\r\nIf he had not been in court on the 9th of December when the matter was adjourned to the 13th, in the absence of an order for service of notices on them they could have successfully argued that they were not notified of the proceedings and therefore not given a hearing. A party who has had notice of impending proceedings but nonetheless chooses to be elsewhere cannot be heard to complain that he was not given a hearing. Since he absented himself from court without any reason, the learned Judge’s decision to proceed in his absence cannot be faulted and I so find. The attack mounted against the judgment on this score cannot therefore be sustained.\r\n\r\nIn the result would allow the appeal in part.\r\n\r\nThe Judgment of the High Court and the consequential orders are set aside. In its place, the defendant is given leave to defend. Suit to take its normal course in the court below.\r\n\r\n(SGD)\r\n\r\nV. AKOTO-BAMFO [MRS.]\r\n\r\nJUSTICE OF APPEAL\r\n\r\nI agree.\r\n\r\nARYEETEY, J.A.\r\n\r\nB.T. ARYEETEY\r\n\r\nJUSTICE OF APPEAL\r\n\r\nI also agree.\r\n\r\nASARE KORANG, J.A.\r\n\r\nA. ASARE KORANG', 'Aryeetey, J.A.', 'Civil', '', 'H1/28/2004', '', '', '', '2004-03-26', ''),
(660, 'ABLORH SOWAH  VRS  THE REPUBLIC', '', 'links/cases/ABLORH SOWAH VRS THE REPUBLIC (28-7-16).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'JUDGMENT \r\nThis appeal has been pending since March 2016. I have given the opportunity to the Applicant \r\nand Respondent to file their submissions or argue the motion on several occasions to no avail. \r\nNeither the counsel for the appellant nor the Respondent has filed anything. I have however \r\nperused the records of appeal and l am satisfied that this is an appeal that could be determined \r\nsummarily. It is clear from the records laid before me that the Circuit Court Judge erred when \r\nat the close of the prosecution’s case, he called on the appellant to open his defence. I am of \r\nthe opinion that, at the close of case for the prosecution, no prima facie case was made out \r\nagainst the appellant. Indeed, the learned trial judge rightly said that the evidence turned out to \r\nbe an oath against oath. The law is that in such cases, the benefit should inure to the the accused. \r\n2  \r\nThe trial judge having not done that but went ahead to call on the applicant to open his defence \r\nand to extract incriminating evidence from him, infact insisting that he proved his innocence \r\nand thus convicting him on the basis of that evidence occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice \r\nto the applicant. \r\nIn the circumstances, I will set aside the conviction and sentence of the applicant and substitute \r\nsame with an acquittal and discharge. Appeal allowed accordingly.   \r\n(SGD) \r\nJUSTIN K. DORGU, J. \r\nJUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT   ', 'JUSTIN K. DORGU, J', 'Criminal', '', 'CR 108/16', '', '', '', '2016-07-28', ''),
(661, 'A/S Rendal v Arcos Limited', '', 'links/cases/A.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER, GREEN,  SCOTT LJJ        ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Shipping - Charter party - Ice clause – Notice of claim for damage – Reservation of right to claim for damage – Judicial cognizance of constitution of a foreign state., ', 'SLESSER LJJ  ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-20', 'Shipping - Charter party - Ice clause'),
(662, 'Abalian and Another v Innous', '', 'links/cases/Abalian and Another v Innous.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREENE, ,SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', ' CIVIL PROCEDURE: Practice Order dismissing action unless fixed for trial within six years from “date of alleged loss” – Order inoperative as uncertain.', 'GREENE LJJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-22', ' CIVIL PROCEDURE'),
(663, 'Adib El Hinnawi v Yacoub Fahmi Abu El Huda El Faruqi', '', 'links/cases/Adib El Hinnawi v Yacoub Fahmi Abu El Huda El Faruqi.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD ATKIN, LORD ALNESS, LORD MAUGHAM        ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'BANKING AND FINANCE: Bills of exchange – Promissory note – Inadequacy of consideration – Issue for the court – Burden of proof.', 'LORD ATKIN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-27', 'BANKING AND FINANCE'),
(664, 'Alderman v Great Western Railway Company', '', 'links/cases/Alderman v Great Western Railway Company.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER, GREEN , SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'HEALTH; Health and safety at work: TRANSPORT; Rail   :  Master and servant – Workmen’s compensation – Course of employment – Interruption of employment – Railwayman in lodgings away from home – Accident between lodgings and railway station.    ', 'SLESSER LJJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-25', 'HEALTH; Health and safety at work: TRANSPORT; Rail        '),
(665, 'Allen v London Passenger Transport Board', '', 'links/cases/Allen v London Passenger Transport Board.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, DU PARCQ , GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', ' EMPLOYMENT; Contract of service: TRANSPORT; Road  , Street traffic – London Passenger Transport Board – Compensation – Abolition of office – London Passenger Transport Act 1933 (c 14) s 73(4), (6).', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-05', 'EMPLOYMENT; Contract of service: TRANSPORT; Road '),
(666, 'Andre Paul Terence Ambard v The Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago', '', 'links/cases/Andre Paul Terence Ambard v The Attorney.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD ATKIN, LORD MAUGHAM, SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT', '', 'Appeal', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Contempt of Court: CIVIL PROCEDURES: COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries, Privy Council – Practice – Appeal – Contempt of court – Court of record.\r\nContempt of court – Publication of criticism of the administration of justice – Imputation – Improper motives – Liberty of the press.\r\n        ', 'LORD ATKIN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-02', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Contempt of Court: CIVIL PROCEDURES: COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries '),
(673, 'Ash v Dickie', '', 'links/cases/Ash v Dickie.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, SLESSER, ROMER, LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', ' INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Copyrigh, Copyright – Infringement – Damages – Conversion – Measure of damages. ', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-28', ' INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Copyrigh'),
(667, 'Andreae v Selfridge & Company Ltd', '', 'links/cases/Andreae v Selfridge.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'CONSTRUCTION: LANDLORD AND TENANT; Leases: TORTS; Nuisance – Noise – Rebuilding operations – Lease reserving rights of rebuilding adjacent property – Contracting out of remedy.', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-28', ':        CONSTRUCTION: LANDLORD AND TENANT; Leases: TORTS; '),
(668, 'Antonio Dias Caldeira v Frederick Augustus Gray', '', 'links/cases/Antonio Dias Caldeira v Frederick Augustus Gray.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD ALNESS, LORD MAUGHAM, SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT        ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Courts: CIVIL PROCEDURE: COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries \r\n, Privy Council – Appeal – Trial before judge alone – Pure question of fact – Functions of appellate court.', 'LORD ALNESS', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-14', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Courts: CIVIL PROCEDURE: COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries '),
(669, 'Apostal v Simons', '', 'links/cases/Apostal v Simons.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER, SCOTT LJJ, EVE J        ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: EQUITY: LAND; Property Rights, Party wall – Damage to wall – Recovery – Law of Property Act 1925, Sched I, Part V', 'SLESSER LJJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-05', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: EQUITY: LAND; Property Rights '),
(670, 'Appenrodt v Central Middlesex Assessment Committee', '', 'links/cases/Appenrodt v Central Middlesex Assessment Committee.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, HUMPHREYS, DU PARCQ JJ        ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Rates – Licensed premises – Monopoly value – Rent the hypothetical tenant would pay – Licensing (Consolidation) Act 1910 (c 24) s 14.', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-20', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(671, 'Arram v Walters', '', 'links/cases/Arram v Walters.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'CONTRACT: LEISURE AND LICENSING: LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Metropolis – Employment agencies – Licensing – Carrying on business at licensed address – London County Council (General Powers) Act 1921 (c 1), ss 11–16.', 'HORRIDGE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-24', 'CONTRACT: LEISURE AND LICENSING: LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(672, 'Ash and Another v Hutchinson & Co (Publishers) Ltd and Others', '', 'links/cases/Ash and Another v Hutchinson.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER, ROMER,  GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Copyright, Infringement – Conversion – Previous action against author – Judgment for infringement only.', 'SLESSER LJJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-18', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Copyright'),
(676, 'Astor Properties Limited v Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society', '', 'links/cases/Astor Properties Limited v Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', ' BANKING AND FINANCE: LAND;Mortgage – Agreement for a loan – Repayment as to the first ten years only agreed – Damages for breach of agreement.', 'HAWKE J  ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-11', ' BANKING AND FINANCE: LAND; Mortgages '),
(677, 'Attorney-General v Oldham Corporation', '', 'links/cases/Attorne1.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT Public utility undertaking – Reserve Fund – Application of fund – Relief of unemployed.', ' BENNETT J ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-09', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT '),
(678, 'Attorney-General v Elias Cohen and Julius Cohe', '', 'links/cases/Attorney.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'TAXATION; Stamp Duties Revenue – Stamp duty – Conveyance on sale – Series of transactions – Finance (1909–10) Act 1910 (c 8) s 73. ', 'LAWRENCE J  ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-07', 'TAXATION; Stamp Duties'),
(679, 'Attygalle v R ', '', 'links/cases/Attygalle v R.pdf', 'Yes', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC, LORD MAUGHAM, SIR SIDNEY', '1936', 'Appeal', ' COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries: CRIMINAL; Criminal Privy Council – Practice – Criminal cases – Special leave to appeal – Mis-direction – Burden of proof – Circumstances only within knowledge of prisoners – Ceylon Evidence Ordinance No 14 of 1895 s 106.', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-26', ' COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries: CRIMINAL; Criminal '),
(680, 'Barbanell v Naylor ', '', 'links/cases/Barbanell v Naylor.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, DU PARCQ,  GODDARD JJ ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Law, Criminal Law – Vagrancy – Fortune-telling – Newspaper article – No reference to any particular person – Vagrancy Act 1824 (c 83), s 4. ', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-13', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(681, 'Beddoes v Shaw', '', 'links/cases/Beddoes v Shaw.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'Appeal', 'EQUITY: LAND; Mortgages  – Priority – Equitable interests – Ranking in order of time – Law of Property Act 1925, (c 20), s 113. ', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-07-03', 'EQUITY: LAND; Mortgages '),
(682, 'Beer v W H Clench (1930) Ltd ', '', 'links/cases/Beer v W H Clench.pdf', 'Yes', 'TALBOT, MACNAGHTEN, DU PARCQ JJ ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Evidence; Road Traffic  Record of hours worked – Required to be kept by statute – Road Traffic Act 1930 (c 43), s 19 – Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933 (c 53), s 16. ', 'TALBOT JJ', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-04', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Evidence; Road Traffic '),
(683, 'Bellotti v Chequers Developments Ltd ', '', 'links/cases/Bellotti v Chequers Developments Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'Appeal', 'CONSTRUCTION: CONSUMER; Consumer Protection Misrepresentation – Fraud – Material misrepresentation – Dimensions of garden – Rescission – National Conditions of Sale, clause 10 – Costs', 'HILBERY J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-04', 'CONSTRUCTION: CONSUMER; Consumer Protection '),
(684, 'Bendir and Others v Anson ', '', 'links/cases/Bendir and Others v Anson.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, ROMER LJ, MACNAGHTEN J ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE Practice – Joinder of plaintiffs – “Transaction or series of transactions” – Action for interference with light – RSC Ord 16, r 1', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-19', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE '),
(685, 'Beresford v Royal Insurance Co Ltd', '', 'links/cases/Beresford v Royal Insurance Co Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'SWIFT J AND A SPECIAL JURY', '2016', 'High Court', 'Insurance – Life assurance – Exception – Suicide “within one year from commencement of assurance” – Suicide nine years after issue – Public policy. ', 'SWIFT J ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-07-13', 'INSURANCE '),
(686, 'Berg v Sadler & Moore', '', 'links/cases/Berg v Sadler.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'SALE OF GOODS “Price maintained” goods – “Stop list” – Attempted purchase by person on stop list – Purchase money paid – Refusal to deliver – Recovery of price – Illegality.', 'MACNAGHTEN J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-18', 'SALE OF GOODS '),
(687, 'Berry v Tottenham Hotspur Football and Athletic Company Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Berry v Tottenham Hotspur Football and Athletic Company Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Companies – Transfer of shares – Registration – Director’s discretion to refuse – Systematic refusal – Splitting of holding increasing voting power.', '', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-11-10', 'COMPANY; Shares'),
(688, 'Bertram v Wightman (Inspector of Taxes)', '', '../links/cases/Bertram v Wightman.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Income Tax – Lands – Grounds of mansion house – House and grounds vacated – Assessment – Income Tax Act 1918 (c 40), sched A, No VII, rr 1, 2, 4.', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-15', 'LAND; Other Land: TAXATION; Assessment'),
(689, 'Beyers v Green ', '', '../links/cases/Beyers v Green.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ AND A SPECIAL JURY         ', '1936', 'High Court', 'CONTRACT: FAMILY; Other Family, Marriage – Breach of Promise – Fraudulent concealment of previous marriage – Action long after pretended marriage', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-11', 'CONTRACT: FAMILY; Other Family'),
(690, 'Bickersteth v Shanu ', '', '../links/cases/Bickersteth v Shanu.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD ALNESS, LORD MAUGHAM, SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT', '1936', 'Appeal', 'SUCCESSION; Wills   Will – Construction – Real estate – Vested and contingent interests – “Upon my son attaining the age of twenty-five years” – “Shall take effect.” ', 'LORD ALNESS', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-30', 'SUCCESSION; Wills '),
(691, 'Bilsland v Inland Revenue Commissioners ', '', '../links/cases/Bilsland v Inland Revenue Commissioners.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'TAXATION; Surtax Income Tax – Sales cum dividend – Avoidance of sur-tax – Apportionment – “Exceptional and not systematic” avoidance – Finance Act 1927 (c 10) s 33(3), (4). ', 'LAWRENCE J         ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-28', 'TAXATION; Surtax         '),
(692, 'Binney v Binney & Hill', '', '../links/cases/Binney v Binney.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Binney v Binney & Hill    Divorce – Discretionary bars – Delay – Culpable delay – Acquiescence.\r\nThe parties to a marriage in 1896 separated in 1912 owing to the adultery of the wife. At that\r\ntime the husband knew he could obtain a divorce and had the means to do so, but the wife', 'BUCKNILL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-05', 'FAMILY; Divorce'),
(693, 'Green v Berliner and others', '', '../links/cases/Green v Berliner and others.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Green v Berliner and others     Theatres and entertainments – Sunday entertainment – Boxing – No free admission – Keeper\r\n– Master of ceremonies – Advertisement – Sunday Observance Act 1780 (c 49) ss 1, 2, 3.\r\n(i) B was the general manager of the Ring, Blackfriars, of which the proprietors were a\r\nlimited company.', 'DU PARCQ J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-02', 'LEISURE AND LICENSING'),
(694, 'Bishop v Deakin', '', '../links/cases/Bishop v Deakin.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Bishop v Deakin    Local Government – Election – Disqualification – By conviction before election – Local\r\nGovernment Act 1933 (c 51), ss 59(1)(e), 84(1).\r\nBy the Local Government Act 1933, s 59(1)(e) a person shall be disqualified for being\r\nelected or being a member of a local authority if he has within five years before the date of\r\nelection or since election been convicted of any offence and ordered to be imprisoned for a\r\nperiod of not less than three months without the option of a fine.', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-17', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(695, 'Grein v Imperial Airways Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Grein v Imperial Airways Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREENE LJJ, AND TALBOT J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Grein v Imperial Airways Ltd    Carriers – Carriage by air – Carriage of passengers – Liability for accident – International\r\ncarriage – Fatal accident – Claim by dependants – Special contract – Limitation of liability –\r\nExclusion of liability in tort – Liability under implied contract – “Wrongful act, neglect or\r\ndefault” – Carriage by Air Act 1932 (c 36) – Fatal Accidents Act 1846 (c 93), s 1.\r\nThe', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '0000-00-00', 'AVIATION: INTERNATIONAL; Air Law: TORTS; Negligence'),
(696, 'Grenfell v E B Meyrowitz Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Grenfell v E B Meyrowitz Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Grenfell v E B Meyrowitz Ltd   Sale of Goods – “Safety-glass” – Laminated glass – Whether warranty of absolute safety –\r\nMerchantable quality – Sale of Goods Act 1893 (c 71), ss 13, 14(2).\r\nAn aviator in 1932 purchased from certain opticians flying goggles described in a catalogue\r\nas fitted with “safety-glass lenses.”', 'GREER, ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '0000-00-00', 'CONSUMER; Consumer protection: SALE OF GOODS'),
(697, 'Greyhound Racing Association (Liverpool) Ltd v Cooper (Inspector of Taxes)', '', '../links/cases/Greyhound Racing Association.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Greyhound Racing Association (Liverpool) Ltd v Cooper (Inspector of Taxes)           Income Tax – Trading profit – Lump sum – Surrender of lease.\r\nThe appellant company having acquired a racing track and equipped it for greyhound racing,\r\nfell into financial difficulties, and the debenture holders appointed a receiver. The latter hired\r\nthe track to another company, at first for yearly periods, and then for the period from 1 May\r\n1932 to 29 April 1941. In March 1934, the second company desiring to go into voluntary\r\nliquidation, it became necessary to ascertain its liabilities, and the receiver was approached to\r\nfix a sum for which he would accept a full surrender of the hiring agreement.', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-28', 'TAXATION; Trade'),
(698, 'Blee v London and North Eastern Railway Co', '', '../links/cases/Blee v London and North Eastern Railway Co.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Blee v London and North Eastern Railway Co    Workmen’s Compensation – Course of employment – Commencement – Accident on way to\r\nwork – Emergency work.\r\nOn 21 January 1935, the workman finished his ordinary day’s work at 5.15 pm, and in the\r\nnormal way would have started work again at 7.20 am on the following day. At 10.30 pm on\r\nthat same evening he was called for emergency duty and was knocked down by a car when\r\ncrossing the street on his way to work. There was no evidence that his employers had any\r\nright to give him any orders until he arrived at the place where his services were required:—', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-20', 'EMPLOYMENT; Other Employment'),
(699, 'Blewett v Blewett', '', '../links/cases/Blewett v Blewett.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, SLESSER AND ROMER LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Blewett v Blewett     Landlord and Tenant – Lease – Lease vested in co-owners – Covenant to repair – Notice to\r\nrepair served on one lessee only – Notice requiring work not within covenant – Vesting of\r\nlease in Public Trustee – Law of Property Act 1925 (c 20), s 146, Sched 1, Part IV, para 1(4).\r\nIn 1877 a lease of two cottages was granted to the defendant’s father to take effect on the\r\ndeath of the plaintiff’s father. On the death of the defendant’s father intestate in 1898, the\r\nlease vested in his wife and upon her death in 1915 it vested by her will in the five children.\r\nThe plaintiff’s father died in 1926. By a family arrangement, the defendant was allowed to\r\nlive rent free in one of the cottages on condition that he kept both cottages in repair. In 1934\r\nthe plaintiff served a notice upon the defendant’s brother, who was one of the lessees and\r\nwho managed the family affairs, requiring him to do certain repairs under a covenant in the\r\nlease. No repairs were done and the plaintiff brought an action for possession. The county\r\ncourt judge found that some of the work required to be done was not repair work within the\r\ncovenant and that other work was of a more expensive character than the covenant required,\r\nand he held that the notice was therefore not a good notice within the Law of Property Act\r\n1925, s 146, and he gave judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed:—', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-29', 'LANDLORD AND TENANT; Leases'),
(700, 'Hain Steamship Company Ltd v Tate & Lyle Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Hain Steamship Company Ltd v Tate.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD THANKERTON, LORD MACMILLAN, LORD WRIGHT MR AND LORD MAUGHAM', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Hain Steamship Company Ltd v Tate & Lyle Ltd    Shipping – Charterparty – Indorsees of bills of lading – Ships to go to loading ports as\r\nordered – Orders not received by master owing to non-delivery of cablegram – Lien of\r\nshipowners – Freight – Deviation – Claim for return of deposit contributed in general\r\naverage.', 'LORD ATKIN,', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-11', 'SHIPPING'),
(701, 'Hardman v Causton', '', '../links/cases/Hardman v Causton.pdf', 'Yes', 'SCOTT LJJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'High Court', 'Hardman v Causton   Practice – Costs – Remitted action – Claim reduced in High Court by giving credit – No\r\njudgment in High Court – Exercise of discretion – County Courts Act 1919 (c 73) ss 11, 12.', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-31', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE'),
(702, 'Haseldine v Winstanley', '', '../links/cases/Haseldine v Winstanley.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Haseldine v Winstanley     Bills of exchange – Requirements of form – No drawee specified – Addition with consent of\r\ndrawer – Material alteration – Treated as promissory note – Bills of Exchange Act 1882 (c\r\n61) ss 20(1), 64(1).', 'HORRIDGE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-02', 'BANKING AND FINANCE'),
(703, 'Bloor v Liverpool Derricking and Carrying Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Bloor v Liverpool Derricking and Carrying Co Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER, SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Bloor v Liverpool Derricking and Carrying Co Ltd    Negligence – Common employment – Director acting as foreman – Workman temporarily\r\nrelieving fellow-worker – Volenti non fit injuria – Heart disease – Novus actus interveniens –\r\nStay of execution – Irrecoverable payment to plaintiff.\r\nThe plaintiff was the widow of a man employed by the defendant company as a derricker.\r\nThe deceased had left the barge on which he was employed and volunteered to act\r\ntemporarily as tipper on a second barge in order to relieve a fellow-workman. The fellowworkman\r\nwas in fact a director of the company, but at the time he was acting merely as a\r\nforeman over the job, and was not there as representing the board of directors. While engaged\r\nas a tipper in these circumstances he stumbled and fell into the hold, sustaining minor\r\ninjuries. He was removed to hospital and given an anaesthetic under which he collapsed and\r\ndied. The post mortem examination showed that he had a diseased heart, but neither the\r\nhistory of the man’s activities nor the use of a stethoscope did or would have disclosed the\r\nman’s condition. At the trial it was held that the death was due to the negligence of the\r\ndefendants, who were ordered to pay to the plaintiff £785, of which sum £300 was not to be\r\nrecoverable in any event. On appeal:—', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-27', 'TORTS; Negligence'),
(704, 'Boag v Standard Marine Insurance Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Boag v Standard Marine Insurance Co Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Boag v Standard Marine Insurance Co Ltd    Insurance – Payment as for total loss – Salvage – Subrogation – Contribution to underwriters\r\nof excess value policies.\r\nA cargo carried on a certain steamer was insured under an ordinary policy, and also under an\r\nexcess value policy. The steamer was stranded and both insurers paid for a total loss and took\r\na letter of subrogation from the owners. Under the ordinary policy a sum of £685 was paid.\r\nOn a general average adjustment being made £532 4s 8d was agreed as the sum arising as\r\nsalvage to be received by the owners. This sum was claimed by the insurers under the\r\nordinary policy, but the underwriters of the excess value policy claimed to share rateably in\r\nthe salvage:—', 'BRANSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-31', 'INSURANCE: SHIPPING'),
(705, 'Hatherton v Commissioners of Inland Revenue', '', '../links/cases/Hatherton v Commissioners of Inland Revenue.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Hatherton v Commissioners of Inland Revenue                Mines – Lease – Rent – Obligation to supply free coal – Finance (1909–10) Act 1910 (c 8)\r\ns 20.\r\nUnder a mining lease the rent included an obligation to deliver a certain quantity of coal to\r\nthe lessor or other such persons as they appoint and to their agents and to such person or\r\npersons as such agents shall appoint.', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-06', 'INDUSTRY: TAXATION; Other Taxation'),
(706, 'Hawkins v Thames Stevedore Co Ltd and Union Cold Storage Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Hawkins v Thames Stevedore Co Ltd and Union Cold Storage Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Hawkins v Thames Stevedore Co Ltd and Union Cold Storage Ltd       Master and Servant – Liability of master at common law – Dangerous hatchway – Breach of\r\nstatutory duties.\r\nFactories and Shops – Regulations – Breach – Factory and Workshop Act 1901 (c 22), s 79 –\r\nFactory and Workshop, Dangerous and Unhealthy Industries, Regulations, (SR & O 1934, No\r\n279), reg 12 – Docks Regulations 1925, (SR & O 1925, No 231).', 'ATKINSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-11', 'HEALTH; Health and safety at work'),
(707, 'Bowater W V & Sons Ltd v Davidson’s Paper Sales Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Bowater W V.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER, SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Bowater W V & Sons Ltd v Davidson’s Paper Sales Ltd    Practice – Appeal – Appeal from Mayor’s and City of London Court – Jurisdiction of Court\r\nof Appeal – Common Law Procedure Act 1852 (c 76) – London (City) Small Debts\r\nExtension Act 1852 (c lxxvii) – Mayor’s Court of London Procedure Act 1857 (c clvii) –\r\nSupreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 (c 66) – Local Government Act 1888 (c 41) – County\r\nCourts Act 1988 (c 43) – Mayor’s and City of London Court Act 1920 (c cxxxiv) – Supreme\r\nCourt of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 (c 49) – Administration of Justice (Appeals)\r\nAct 1934 (c 40).\r\n(i) An appeal from proceedings in the Mayor’ and City of London Court within the County\r\nCourt jurisdiction, lies to the Court of Appeal;', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-27', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Courts: CIVIL PROCEDURES'),
(708, 'Hayes Bridge Estate v Portman Building Society', '', '../links/cases/Hayes Bridge Estate v Portman Building Society.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Hayes Bridge Estate v Portman Building Society  Building Societies – Security on which advance may be made – Loan secured by first\r\nmortgage – Second mortgage as collateral security – Validity of second mortgage –\r\nConsolidation.', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-21', 'BANKING AND FINANCE: LAND; Mortgages'),
(709, 'Hearts of Oak Building Society v Law Union and Rock Insurance Company Limited', '', '../links/cases/Hearts of Oak Building Society v Law Union and Rock Insurance Company Limited.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Hearts of Oak Building Society v Law Union and Rock Insurance Company Limited              Insurance – Policy of fidelity guarantee – Application – Answers to questions as to duties of\r\nperson proposed – Whether warranties.\r\nIn an application for a policy of fidelity guarantee to be issued by the respondents in respect\r\nof a solicitor employed by the claimants to receive mortgage moneys, the claimants in reply\r\nto certain questions stated, inter alia, that the solicitor was required to send daily statements\r\nof cash received and to pay over such cash to the claimants as soon as it was received.', 'GODDARD J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-28', 'INSURANCE'),
(710, 'Heginbottom v Watts', '', '../links/cases/Heginbottom v Watts.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREENE LJJ, AND TALBOT J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Heginbottom v Watts      Landlord and Tenant – Rent restriction – Class C dwelling-house – Claim for possession –\r\nDecontrol – Onus of proof – Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933\r\n(c 32), s 1(2).', 'GREER ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-28', 'LANDLORD AND TENANT; Rent'),
(711, 'Beyers v Green ', '', '../links/cases/Beyers v Green.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ AND A SPECIAL JURY         ', '1936', 'High Court', 'CONTRACT: FAMILY; Other Family, Marriage – Breach of Promise – Fraudulent concealment of previous marriage – Action long after pretended marriage', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-11', 'CONTRACT: FAMILY; Other Family'),
(712, 'Bickersteth v Shanu ', '', '../links/cases/Bickersteth v Shanu.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD ALNESS, LORD MAUGHAM, SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT', '1936', 'Appeal', 'SUCCESSION; Wills   Will – Construction – Real estate – Vested and contingent interests – “Upon my son attaining the age of twenty-five years” – “Shall take effect.” ', 'LORD ALNESS', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-30', 'SUCCESSION; Wills '),
(713, 'Bilsland v Inland Revenue Commissioners ', '', '../links/cases/Bilsland v Inland Revenue Commissioners.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'TAXATION; Surtax Income Tax – Sales cum dividend – Avoidance of sur-tax – Apportionment – “Exceptional and not systematic” avoidance – Finance Act 1927 (c 10) s 33(3), (4). ', 'LAWRENCE J         ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-28', 'TAXATION; Surtax         '),
(714, 'Binney v Binney & Hill', '', '../links/cases/Binney v Binney.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Binney v Binney & Hill    Divorce – Discretionary bars – Delay – Culpable delay – Acquiescence.\r\nThe parties to a marriage in 1896 separated in 1912 owing to the adultery of the wife. At that\r\ntime the husband knew he could obtain a divorce and had the means to do so, but the wife', 'BUCKNILL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-05', 'FAMILY; Divorce'),
(715, 'Green v Berliner and others', '', '../links/cases/Green v Berliner and others.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Green v Berliner and others     Theatres and entertainments – Sunday entertainment – Boxing – No free admission – Keeper\r\n– Master of ceremonies – Advertisement – Sunday Observance Act 1780 (c 49) ss 1, 2, 3.\r\n(i) B was the general manager of the Ring, Blackfriars, of which the proprietors were a\r\nlimited company.', 'DU PARCQ J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-02', 'LEISURE AND LICENSING'),
(716, 'Bishop v Deakin', '', '../links/cases/Bishop v Deakin.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Bishop v Deakin    Local Government – Election – Disqualification – By conviction before election – Local\r\nGovernment Act 1933 (c 51), ss 59(1)(e), 84(1).\r\nBy the Local Government Act 1933, s 59(1)(e) a person shall be disqualified for being\r\nelected or being a member of a local authority if he has within five years before the date of\r\nelection or since election been convicted of any offence and ordered to be imprisoned for a\r\nperiod of not less than three months without the option of a fine.', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-17', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(717, 'Grein v Imperial Airways Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Grein v Imperial Airways Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREENE LJJ, AND TALBOT J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Grein v Imperial Airways Ltd    Carriers – Carriage by air – Carriage of passengers – Liability for accident – International\r\ncarriage – Fatal accident – Claim by dependants – Special contract – Limitation of liability –\r\nExclusion of liability in tort – Liability under implied contract – “Wrongful act, neglect or\r\ndefault” – Carriage by Air Act 1932 (c 36) – Fatal Accidents Act 1846 (c 93), s 1.\r\nThe', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '0000-00-00', 'AVIATION: INTERNATIONAL; Air Law: TORTS; Negligence'),
(718, 'Grenfell v E B Meyrowitz Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Grenfell v E B Meyrowitz Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Grenfell v E B Meyrowitz Ltd   Sale of Goods – “Safety-glass” – Laminated glass – Whether warranty of absolute safety –\r\nMerchantable quality – Sale of Goods Act 1893 (c 71), ss 13, 14(2).\r\nAn aviator in 1932 purchased from certain opticians flying goggles described in a catalogue\r\nas fitted with “safety-glass lenses.”', 'GREER, ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '0000-00-00', 'CONSUMER; Consumer protection: SALE OF GOODS'),
(719, 'Greyhound Racing Association (Liverpool) Ltd v Cooper (Inspector of Taxes)', '', '../links/cases/Greyhound Racing Association.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Greyhound Racing Association (Liverpool) Ltd v Cooper (Inspector of Taxes)           Income Tax – Trading profit – Lump sum – Surrender of lease.\r\nThe appellant company having acquired a racing track and equipped it for greyhound racing,\r\nfell into financial difficulties, and the debenture holders appointed a receiver. The latter hired\r\nthe track to another company, at first for yearly periods, and then for the period from 1 May\r\n1932 to 29 April 1941. In March 1934, the second company desiring to go into voluntary\r\nliquidation, it became necessary to ascertain its liabilities, and the receiver was approached to\r\nfix a sum for which he would accept a full surrender of the hiring agreement.', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-28', 'TAXATION; Trade');
INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(720, 'Blee v London and North Eastern Railway Co', '', '../links/cases/Blee v London and North Eastern Railway Co.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Blee v London and North Eastern Railway Co    Workmen’s Compensation – Course of employment – Commencement – Accident on way to\r\nwork – Emergency work.\r\nOn 21 January 1935, the workman finished his ordinary day’s work at 5.15 pm, and in the\r\nnormal way would have started work again at 7.20 am on the following day. At 10.30 pm on\r\nthat same evening he was called for emergency duty and was knocked down by a car when\r\ncrossing the street on his way to work. There was no evidence that his employers had any\r\nright to give him any orders until he arrived at the place where his services were required:—', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-20', 'EMPLOYMENT; Other Employment'),
(721, 'Blewett v Blewett', '', '../links/cases/Blewett v Blewett.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, SLESSER AND ROMER LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Blewett v Blewett     Landlord and Tenant – Lease – Lease vested in co-owners – Covenant to repair – Notice to\r\nrepair served on one lessee only – Notice requiring work not within covenant – Vesting of\r\nlease in Public Trustee – Law of Property Act 1925 (c 20), s 146, Sched 1, Part IV, para 1(4).\r\nIn 1877 a lease of two cottages was granted to the defendant’s father to take effect on the\r\ndeath of the plaintiff’s father. On the death of the defendant’s father intestate in 1898, the\r\nlease vested in his wife and upon her death in 1915 it vested by her will in the five children.\r\nThe plaintiff’s father died in 1926. By a family arrangement, the defendant was allowed to\r\nlive rent free in one of the cottages on condition that he kept both cottages in repair. In 1934\r\nthe plaintiff served a notice upon the defendant’s brother, who was one of the lessees and\r\nwho managed the family affairs, requiring him to do certain repairs under a covenant in the\r\nlease. No repairs were done and the plaintiff brought an action for possession. The county\r\ncourt judge found that some of the work required to be done was not repair work within the\r\ncovenant and that other work was of a more expensive character than the covenant required,\r\nand he held that the notice was therefore not a good notice within the Law of Property Act\r\n1925, s 146, and he gave judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed:—', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-29', 'LANDLORD AND TENANT; Leases'),
(722, 'Hain Steamship Company Ltd v Tate & Lyle Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Hain Steamship Company Ltd v Tate.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD THANKERTON, LORD MACMILLAN, LORD WRIGHT MR AND LORD MAUGHAM', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Hain Steamship Company Ltd v Tate & Lyle Ltd    Shipping – Charterparty – Indorsees of bills of lading – Ships to go to loading ports as\r\nordered – Orders not received by master owing to non-delivery of cablegram – Lien of\r\nshipowners – Freight – Deviation – Claim for return of deposit contributed in general\r\naverage.', 'LORD ATKIN,', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-11', 'SHIPPING'),
(723, 'Hardman v Causton', '', '../links/cases/Hardman v Causton.pdf', 'Yes', 'SCOTT LJJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'High Court', 'Hardman v Causton   Practice – Costs – Remitted action – Claim reduced in High Court by giving credit – No\r\njudgment in High Court – Exercise of discretion – County Courts Act 1919 (c 73) ss 11, 12.', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-31', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE'),
(724, 'Haseldine v Winstanley', '', '../links/cases/Haseldine v Winstanley.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Haseldine v Winstanley     Bills of exchange – Requirements of form – No drawee specified – Addition with consent of\r\ndrawer – Material alteration – Treated as promissory note – Bills of Exchange Act 1882 (c\r\n61) ss 20(1), 64(1).', 'HORRIDGE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-02', 'BANKING AND FINANCE'),
(725, 'Bloor v Liverpool Derricking and Carrying Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Bloor v Liverpool Derricking and Carrying Co Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER, SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Bloor v Liverpool Derricking and Carrying Co Ltd    Negligence – Common employment – Director acting as foreman – Workman temporarily\r\nrelieving fellow-worker – Volenti non fit injuria – Heart disease – Novus actus interveniens –\r\nStay of execution – Irrecoverable payment to plaintiff.\r\nThe plaintiff was the widow of a man employed by the defendant company as a derricker.\r\nThe deceased had left the barge on which he was employed and volunteered to act\r\ntemporarily as tipper on a second barge in order to relieve a fellow-workman. The fellowworkman\r\nwas in fact a director of the company, but at the time he was acting merely as a\r\nforeman over the job, and was not there as representing the board of directors. While engaged\r\nas a tipper in these circumstances he stumbled and fell into the hold, sustaining minor\r\ninjuries. He was removed to hospital and given an anaesthetic under which he collapsed and\r\ndied. The post mortem examination showed that he had a diseased heart, but neither the\r\nhistory of the man’s activities nor the use of a stethoscope did or would have disclosed the\r\nman’s condition. At the trial it was held that the death was due to the negligence of the\r\ndefendants, who were ordered to pay to the plaintiff £785, of which sum £300 was not to be\r\nrecoverable in any event. On appeal:—', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-27', 'TORTS; Negligence'),
(726, 'Boag v Standard Marine Insurance Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Boag v Standard Marine Insurance Co Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Boag v Standard Marine Insurance Co Ltd    Insurance – Payment as for total loss – Salvage – Subrogation – Contribution to underwriters\r\nof excess value policies.\r\nA cargo carried on a certain steamer was insured under an ordinary policy, and also under an\r\nexcess value policy. The steamer was stranded and both insurers paid for a total loss and took\r\na letter of subrogation from the owners. Under the ordinary policy a sum of £685 was paid.\r\nOn a general average adjustment being made £532 4s 8d was agreed as the sum arising as\r\nsalvage to be received by the owners. This sum was claimed by the insurers under the\r\nordinary policy, but the underwriters of the excess value policy claimed to share rateably in\r\nthe salvage:—', 'BRANSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-31', 'INSURANCE: SHIPPING'),
(727, 'Hatherton v Commissioners of Inland Revenue', '', '../links/cases/Hatherton v Commissioners of Inland Revenue.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Hatherton v Commissioners of Inland Revenue                Mines – Lease – Rent – Obligation to supply free coal – Finance (1909–10) Act 1910 (c 8)\r\ns 20.\r\nUnder a mining lease the rent included an obligation to deliver a certain quantity of coal to\r\nthe lessor or other such persons as they appoint and to their agents and to such person or\r\npersons as such agents shall appoint.', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-06', 'INDUSTRY: TAXATION; Other Taxation'),
(728, 'Hawkins v Thames Stevedore Co Ltd and Union Cold Storage Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Hawkins v Thames Stevedore Co Ltd and Union Cold Storage Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Hawkins v Thames Stevedore Co Ltd and Union Cold Storage Ltd       Master and Servant – Liability of master at common law – Dangerous hatchway – Breach of\r\nstatutory duties.\r\nFactories and Shops – Regulations – Breach – Factory and Workshop Act 1901 (c 22), s 79 –\r\nFactory and Workshop, Dangerous and Unhealthy Industries, Regulations, (SR & O 1934, No\r\n279), reg 12 – Docks Regulations 1925, (SR & O 1925, No 231).', 'ATKINSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-11', 'HEALTH; Health and safety at work'),
(729, 'Bowater W V & Sons Ltd v Davidson’s Paper Sales Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Bowater W V.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER, SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Bowater W V & Sons Ltd v Davidson’s Paper Sales Ltd    Practice – Appeal – Appeal from Mayor’s and City of London Court – Jurisdiction of Court\r\nof Appeal – Common Law Procedure Act 1852 (c 76) – London (City) Small Debts\r\nExtension Act 1852 (c lxxvii) – Mayor’s Court of London Procedure Act 1857 (c clvii) –\r\nSupreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 (c 66) – Local Government Act 1888 (c 41) – County\r\nCourts Act 1988 (c 43) – Mayor’s and City of London Court Act 1920 (c cxxxiv) – Supreme\r\nCourt of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 (c 49) – Administration of Justice (Appeals)\r\nAct 1934 (c 40).\r\n(i) An appeal from proceedings in the Mayor’ and City of London Court within the County\r\nCourt jurisdiction, lies to the Court of Appeal;', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-27', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Courts: CIVIL PROCEDURES'),
(730, 'Hayes Bridge Estate v Portman Building Society', '', '../links/cases/Hayes Bridge Estate v Portman Building Society.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Hayes Bridge Estate v Portman Building Society  Building Societies – Security on which advance may be made – Loan secured by first\r\nmortgage – Second mortgage as collateral security – Validity of second mortgage –\r\nConsolidation.', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-21', 'BANKING AND FINANCE: LAND; Mortgages'),
(731, 'Hearts of Oak Building Society v Law Union and Rock Insurance Company Limited', '', '../links/cases/Hearts of Oak Building Society v Law Union and Rock Insurance Company Limited.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Hearts of Oak Building Society v Law Union and Rock Insurance Company Limited              Insurance – Policy of fidelity guarantee – Application – Answers to questions as to duties of\r\nperson proposed – Whether warranties.\r\nIn an application for a policy of fidelity guarantee to be issued by the respondents in respect\r\nof a solicitor employed by the claimants to receive mortgage moneys, the claimants in reply\r\nto certain questions stated, inter alia, that the solicitor was required to send daily statements\r\nof cash received and to pay over such cash to the claimants as soon as it was received.', 'GODDARD J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-28', 'INSURANCE'),
(732, 'Heginbottom v Watts', '', '../links/cases/Heginbottom v Watts.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREENE LJJ, AND TALBOT J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Heginbottom v Watts      Landlord and Tenant – Rent restriction – Class C dwelling-house – Claim for possession –\r\nDecontrol – Onus of proof – Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933\r\n(c 32), s 1(2).', 'GREER ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-28', 'LANDLORD AND TENANT; Rent'),
(733, 'Bracia Czeczowiczka v Otto Markus Bracia Czeczowiczka v Rudolf Loy', '', '../links/cases/Bracia Czeczowiczka v Otto Markus.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD ATKINS, LORD ALNESS, LORD MAUGHAM', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Bracia Czeczowiczka v Otto Markus Bracia Czeczowiczka v Rudolf Loy    Bankruptcy – Bankruptcy notice – Creditor preventing debtor satisfying the debt – Order\r\nattaching debt – Onus of proof.\r\nPrivy Council – Kenya – Execution – Application of decisions under Debtors Act 1869.\r\n(i) Before the war, the creditors, a Polish firm, sold to the debtors, an Austrian firm, trading in\r\nEast Africa, certain cotton goods. The period of credit had not expired on the outbreak of the\r\nwar; but the debtors being enemy nationals were interned and their African business and\r\nproperty was lost to them. After the war they had a claim against the German Government,\r\nbut had then become nationals of Czechoslovakia. In 1924 the debtors returned to East\r\nAfrica, and in the same year the creditors sued them in Vienna and obtained judgment against\r\nthem. In 1925 the debtors obtained an award from the Mixed German Czechoslovak Arbitral\r\nTribunal against the German State for a large sum and in the same year the creditors obtained\r\nan attachment on the “alleged debtors’ claim against the Reich Settling Office.” In 1932 the\r\ncreditors obtained judgment for their debt in Kenya and in 1933 they caused the debtors to be\r\nserved with two bankruptcy notices. The bankruptcy law in Kenya on this point is the same\r\nas in England under the Bankruptcy Act 1914. The debtors sought to have the orders set aside\r\non the ground that by attaching the award in Germany the creditors had prevented them\r\nsatisfying the judgment:—', 'LORD ATKINS', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-05', 'BANKRUPTCY'),
(734, 'Hem Singh v Mahant Basant Das', '', '../links/cases/Hem Singh v Mahant Basant Das.pdf', 'Yes', 'SIR JOHN WALLIS AND SIR GEORGE RANKIN', '1936', 'High Court', 'Hem Singh v Mahant Basant Das              Appeals to Privy Council – Right of appeal – Decision of Court of Appeal – Jurisdiction\r\nconferred upon Court of Appeal by special Act.\r\nAn Act gave power to a tribunal set up thereunder to decide questions which in substance\r\nconcern the nature of the trusts under which the endowments of certain religious institutions\r\nare held. They also include questions of compensation for loss of office and questions as\r\nregards claims to property in respect of which the tribunal’s powers are not limited by any\r\nprovisions as to value.', 'LORD ALNESS', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-23', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Courts: CIVIL PROCEDURE: CONSTITUTIONAL; Crown'),
(735, 'Henaghan v Rederiet Forangirene', '', '../links/cases/Henaghan v Rederiet Forangirene.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Henaghan v Rederiet Forangirene           Negligence – Invitee – Scope of invitation – Stevedore.\r\nFactories and Shops – Regulations – Ships – Lighting – Hatches – Factory and Workshops\r\nAct 1901, (c 22) – Docks Regulations 1934, regs 12(c), 37(a).\r\nThe plaintiff, employed as a labourer, was assisting in the unloading of timber from the\r\ndefendants’ ship. Having finished unloading one kind of timber, a different skid was required\r\nto unload the next kind.', 'LEWIS J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-16', 'HEALTH; Health and safety at work: INDUSTRY: TORTS; Negligence'),
(736, 'British and French Trust Corporation v The New Brunswick Railway Company', '', '../links/cases/British and French Trust Corporation v The New Brunswick Railway Company.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'British and French Trust Corporation v The New Brunswick Railway Company    Money – Covenant to pay on a gold basis – Redemption of debenture – Payment of interest –\r\nConstruction – Surrounding circumstances.\r\nEstoppel – By record – Judgment in default of defence – Judgment upon one of a series of\r\nlike debentures – Identity of debentures not pleaded in previous action.', 'HILBERY J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-16', 'BANKING AND FINANCE: CIVIL PROCEDURE'),
(737, 'Bromiley v Collins', '', '../links/cases/Bromiley v Collins.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Bromiley v Collins    Master and Servant – Liability for accident – Voluntary assistance of servant by stranger –\r\nCommon employment.\r\nCertain employees of the defendant finding themselves unable to move a heavily laden trailer\r\ncalled for volunteers. The plaintiff, a lad of eighteen, volunteered and was injured by the\r\nshifting of the load. It was found as a fact that there was no immediate urgency for the\r\nremoval of the trailer:—', 'ATKINSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-07', 'HEALTH; Health and safety at work'),
(738, 'Brooks v Jefferies', '', '../links/cases/Brooks v Jefferies.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, BRANSON AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Brooks v Jefferies    Street Traffic – Traffic signs – “Halt at major road ahead” – Part of sign only seen by\r\nmotorist – Obedience to order as seen – Failure to comply with whole order.\r\nA motorist was approaching certain cross-roads when he passed a road sign which read: “Halt\r\nat major road ahead.” The word “Halt” was in large letters fitted with reflecting lenses. It was\r\ndark at the material time and the motorist could reasonably see only the word “Halt.” He had,\r\nhowever, passed the sign previously in daylight. The motorist halted at the sign and then\r\nslowly approached and turned into the major road. The construction of the sign conformed\r\nwith the directions for such signs in the regulations and orders issued by the Minister of\r\nTransport:—', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-20', 'TRANSPORT; Road'),
(739, 'Brooks Wharf and Bull Wharf Ltd v Goodman Bros', '', '../links/cases/Brooks Wharf and Bull Wharf Ltd v Goodman Bros.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1935', 'High Court', 'Brooks Wharf and Bull Wharf Ltd v Goodman Bros    Revenue – Bonded warehouse – Time when duty becomes due – Goods stolen from bonded\r\nwarehouse – Liability of importer – Customs Consolidation Act 1876, (c 36), ss 13, 85.\r\nBy an agreement between the plaintiffs, bonded warehousemen, and the defendants it was\r\nagreed that the defendants should pay to the plaintiffs certain wharf charges and that the\r\nplaintiffs should warehouse certain goods which the defendants were importing, undertaking\r\nin respect of them the usual obligations of bonded warehousemen. The goods were duly\r\nimported, customs duties becoming due. The goods were stolen before the duty had been\r\npaid. The plaintiffs paid the duty, pleading obligation to HM Customs and alternatively their\r\nobligations as bonded warehousemen, and sued for the sum paid. The defendants contended\r\nthat the duty was paid as a personal liability of the plaintiffs as bonded warehousemen and\r\ncounterclaimed for the value of the goods stolen, alleging negligence:—', 'BRANSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1935-02-10', 'TAXATION; VAT and Customs and Excise'),
(740, 'Brown v Brown', '', '../links/cases/Brown v Brown.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Brown v Brown    Divorce – Variation of settlement – Immediate annuity to husband – Purchased after marriage\r\n– Gift – Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 (c 49), s 192.\r\nA wife immediately after her marriage signed a proposal form for an immediate annuity to\r\nher husband, and an insurance company thereupon entered into the deed, whereby the\r\ncompany agreed both with the husband and with the wife, in consideration of a certain sum\r\npaid by the wife, to pay to the husband a certain annuity. The marriage was dissolved and the\r\nwife sought to vary the annuity deed, as being a post-nuptial settlement under the Supreme\r\nCourt of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, s 192:—', 'LANGTON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-30', 'FAMILY; Ancillary Finance and Property'),
(741, 'Browne v Moody and Others', '', '../links/cases/Browne v Moody and Others.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD ATKIN, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MACMILLAN, LORD ALNESS, SIR MICHAEL MYERS', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Browne v Moody and Others    Will – Construction – Vesting – Gift contained only in direction to divide – Postponement of\r\ngift to let in life interest – Substitution clause.\r\nTestatrix, by cl 5 of her will, set aside a fund of $100,000, and gave the income therefrom to\r\nher son for his life, and on his death she directed the fund to be divided as follows: one half to\r\nher grand-daughter Enid, and the other half equally between her daughters Florence,\r\nConstance and Helen. By cl 6 she gave, devised and bequeathed the residue of the estate\r\nequally between the said grand-daughter and her three daughters share and share alike. By cl\r\n7 she directed that, if the grand-daughter or any of the daughters predeceased her or her son\r\nleaving issue, the child or children of the person so dying should take the share to which their\r\nmother would have been entitled had she survived. All the beneficiaries mentioned survived\r\nthe testatrix. A special case was stated for the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada,\r\nasking two questions: (a) whether the legacies given by cl 5 on the death of the son vested in\r\nthe beneficiaries on the death of the testatrix; (b) if they became so vested whether they were\r\nliable to be divested under cl 7. The Supreme Court answered the first question in the\r\nnegative, and the second question did not arise. On appeal to the Privy Council:—', 'LORD ATKIN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-27', 'COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries: SUCCESSION; Wills'),
(742, 'Bruce v Odhams Press Limited', '', '../links/cases/Bruce v Odhams Press Limited.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER, SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Bruce v Odhams Press Limited    Practice – Pleading – Particulars – Libel – Plaintiff not referred to by name or description\r\nother than nationality.\r\nThe plaintiff complained that she was libelled by a newspaper article concerning certain\r\naeroplane smuggling exploits of “an Englishwoman.” The plaintiff was not referred to by\r\nname or description, but alleged that the words “an Englishwoman” referred to her. The\r\ndefendants applied for particulars of the facts from which it was to be inferred that the\r\nplaintiff was the person referred to.', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-07', 'CIVIL PROCEDURES: COMMUNICATIONS: TORTS; Defamation'),
(743, 'Burgoyne v Rose Bridge Colliery Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Burgoyne v Rose Bridge Colliery Co Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER, GREENE AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Burgoyne v Rose Bridge Colliery Co Ltd    Master and servant – Workmen’s compensation – Reference to medical referee by consent –\r\nReport remitted by registrar without consulting parties – Jurisdiction of registrar –\r\nWorkmen’s Compensation Act 1925 (c 84), s 19(2) – Workmen’s Compensation Rules 1926,\r\nr 57.\r\nA workman was struck in the eye by a flying piece of metal and totally incapacitated. After\r\nhe had received compensation for six months his employers served on him a notice of\r\ntermination of payment, containing a medical certificate stating that he had recovered. The\r\nworkman served a counter-certificate, and the parties agreed on a reference to a medical\r\nreferee. The registrar sent to the medical referee a request for an answer to the questions:', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-02', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Tribunals: HEALTH; Health and safety'),
(744, 'Burke v Spicer’s Dress Designs', '', '../links/cases/Burke v Spicer.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Burke v Spicer’s Dress Designs     Copyright – Sketch of dress – Dress itself – Reproduction – Original work of artistic\r\ncraftsmanship – Copyright Act 1911, s 22.\r\nMLB had designed, and MB Ltd, with the consent of MLB, from that design had made a\r\ndress which they alleged the defendants had copied thereby, as the plaintiffs alleged,\r\ninfringing the copyright of MLB in the sketch, and of MB Ltd in the dress. In an action for an\r\ninjunction to restrain the defendants from infringing these copyrights,', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-04', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Designs'),
(745, 'Herd v Herd (King’s Proctor Intervening)', '', '../links/cases/Herd v Herd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Herd v Herd (King’s Proctor Intervening)     Divorce – Domicil – Desertion by husband – Foreign domicil acquired by husband – Petition\r\nfor divorce by wife in England – Jurisdiction of court to grant decree.\r\nA husband and wife, both born in England of English parents, were married in England in\r\n1905, where they resided together until in 1923 the husband left his wife and went to the\r\nUnited States of America.', 'BUCKNILL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-17', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Courts: FAMILY; Divorce, Family Proceedings'),
(746, 'Burmingham v Lindsell', '', '../links/cases/Burmingham v Lindsell.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Burmingham v Lindsell    Street Traffic – Sound-recording van – Apparatus an essentially permanent fixture – Goods\r\nvehicle – Road Traffic Act 1930 (c 43), ss 2(4)(b), 10(1), Sched 1.\r\nThe driver of a sound-recording van drove it at more than 30 mph on a road where the speed\r\nof private motor cars was not restricted. The apparatus fitted in the van was an essentially\r\npermanent fixture within the Road Traffic Act 1930 s 2(4)(b). The driver was convicted of an\r\noffence under s 10(1), the court holding that the car was a goods vehicle within Sched 1, para\r\n2. The driver appealed, submitting that the car was a private car, as it was taxed as a private\r\ncar and the apparatus was not a load within s 2(4)(b):—', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-27', 'CRIMINAL; Road Traffic: TRANSPORT; Road'),
(747, 'Burnham v Boyer and Brown', '', '../links/cases/Burnham v Boyer and Brown.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Burnham v Boyer and Brown     Tort – Joint tortfeasors – Contribution – Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act\r\n1935 (c 30), s 6.\r\nThe plaintiff, who was upon the premises of the defendant in circumstances which made him\r\nin law an invitee, fell down a hole. The hole had been left uncovered by the negligence of a\r\ncontractor who was carrying out certain work upon the premises, and he was added as a third\r\nparty, as the defendant alleged that the contractor was liable to contribute towards the\r\ndamages. The damages were agreed at £200 and the action proceeded solely in respect of the\r\nclaim for indemnity or contribution by the defendant against the third party:—', 'HORRIDGE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-15', 'TORTS; Negligence'),
(748, 'C Christopher (Hove) Ltd v Williams and Another', '', '../links/cases/C Christopher.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, ROMER LJ AND MACNAGHTEN J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'C Christopher (Hove) Ltd v Williams and Another     Practice – Alternative claims against two defendants – Leave to sign judgment against one\r\ndefendant – Whether bar to proceeding against other – Election.\r\nA firm of costumiers claimed against a husband and wife the price of various articles\r\nsupplied to the wife. An order was made that the plaintiffs, the costumiers, be at liberty to\r\nsign final judgment in the action against the wife, the summons (under RSC Ord 14) against\r\nthe husband being adjourned. Judgment was never signed against the wife. The matter went\r\non to trial against the husband who alleged that in the circumstances of the case he was not\r\nliable in respect of orders given by his wife, even for necessaries.', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-14', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE'),
(749, 'Herniman v Smith', '', '../links/cases/Herniman v Smith.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREENE AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Herniman v Smith      Malicious Prosecution – Reasonable and probable cause for prosecution – Conviction\r\nquashed in the Court of Criminal Appeal.', 'GREER, ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-13', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Evidence, Criminal Procedure'),
(750, 'Hill v Ladyshore Coal Company (1930) Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Hill v Ladyshore Coal Company.pdf', 'Yes', 'SCOTT LJJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Hill v Ladyshore Coal Company (1930) Ltd      Workmen’s Compensation – Medical referee – Report – Certificate of employer’s doctor –\r\nImperfect copy – Compliance with statute essential – Workmen’s Compensation Act 1925\r\n(c 84), s 12(3).    ', 'SLESSER ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-21', 'EMPLOYMENT; Other Employment'),
(751, 'Cafferata v Wilson Reeve v Wilson', '', '../links/cases/Cafferata v Wilson.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, BRANSON AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Cafferata v Wilson\r\nReeve v Wilson    Firearms – Dummy revolver – Sale by person not registered as firearms dealer – Firearms\r\nAct 1920 (c 43), s 2(1).\r\nA person, who was not registered as a firearms dealer, sold a dummy revolver, which was\r\nsimilar in appearance to an ordinary revolver, but was fitted with a barrel and cartridge\r\nchambers only partially bored. There was a venthole in the barrel for the escape of gasses. It\r\nwas incapable, as sold, of discharging a missile, but by drilling it could be converted into a\r\nweapon capable of killing a man at a distance of 5 feet. Informations were preferred under the\r\nFirearms Act 1920, s 2(1) against the seller, charging him with having, when not registered as\r\na firearms dealer under that Act, sold a firearm, and against the wholesaler who had supplied\r\nit, for having aided and abetted the sale:—', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-20', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(752, 'Hilton v Billington & Newton Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Hilton v Billington.pdf', 'Yes', 'SCOTT LJJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Supreme', 'Hilton v Billington & Newton Ltd           Workmen’s Compensation – Disease – Heart failure – Contributing to death of workman –\r\nTemporary recovery.', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-23', 'EMPLOYMENT; Other Employment'),
(753, 'Cecil-Wright v McCulloch', '', '../links/cases/Cecil.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER AND SCOTT LJJ, AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Cecil-Wright v McCulloch    Practice – Mode and place of trial – Trial by jury – Allegation of fraud – Discretion of judge.\r\nIn an action for breach of a separation agreement the plaintiff alleged that she had been\r\ninduced by false pretences and undue influence amounting to duress to enter into agreements\r\nto reduce the amount payable under the separation agreement. The master ordered the case to\r\nbe tried with a jury. The defendants appealed to a judge in chambers asking that it should be\r\ntried by a judge alone or transferred to the Chancery Division. The judge ordered that the\r\ncase be transferred to the Chancery Division. The plaintiff appealed:—', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-11-09', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Procedure'),
(754, 'Hitchins and another v British Coal Refining Processes Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Hitchins and another v British Coal Refining Processes Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'MACNAGHTEN JJ', '1936', 'High Court', 'Hitchins and another v British Coal Refining Processes Ltd       Arbitration – Error on face of award – Application to set aside – Reference to pleadings in\r\naward – Incorporation in award.', 'TALBOT', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-04', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Arbitration'),
(755, 'Central London Railway Company v Commissioners of Inland Revenue London Electric Railway Company v Commissioners of Inland Revenue Metropolitan Railway Company v Commissioners of Inland Revenue', '', '../links/cases/Central London Railway Company v Commissioners of Inland Revenue.pdf', 'Yes', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC, LORD BLANESBURGH, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MACMILLAN, LORD ROCHE', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Central London Railway Company v Commissioners of Inland Revenue\r\nLondon Electric Railway Company v Commissioners of Inland Revenue\r\nMetropolitan Railway Company v Commissioners of Inland Revenue    Income Tax – Debenture interest charged to capital account under private Act – Whether\r\n“payable wholly out of profits or gains brought into charge” – Right of company to retain\r\nincome tax deducted from interest – All Schedules Rules rr 19, 21.\r\nA company, as empowered by a private Act of 1930, raised £850,000 by an issue of\r\ndebenture stock. By s 118 of the private Act, the company was allowed to charge to capital\r\naccount the interest accruing till 1935 on money so raised. Interest, subject to deduction of\r\nincome tax, was duly paid partly out of capital and was so debited in the company’s accounts.\r\nAn assessment to income tax was made in respect of the said interest on the ground that it had\r\nnot been paid out of profits brought into charge to income tax. The company maintained that\r\nit was entitled to retain as its own the tax deducted from the interest on the ground that, as\r\nthere was income in its hands already subjected to tax which it could have used to pay the\r\ninterest, the payment of interest debited to capital in the company’s accounts ought to be\r\ntreated as having been paid out of taxed profits:—', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-21', 'COMPANY; Shares: TAXATION; Other Taxation'),
(756, 'Hoddesdon Urban District Council v Broxbourne Sand and Ballast Pits Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Hoddesdon Urban District Council v Broxbourne Sand and Ballast Pits Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'SIR FRANCIS TAYLOR KC AND SIR FRANCIS DUNNELL', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Hoddesdon Urban District Council v Broxbourne Sand and Ballast Pits Ltd           Highway – Diversion – Sand pit – Grant of ancillary right – Jurisdiction of Railway and\r\nCanal Commission – Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923 (c 20), s 3.', 'MACKINNON J ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-18', 'ENVIRONMENTAL'),
(757, 'Chabot v Davies and Another', '', '../links/cases/Chabot v Davies and Another.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Chabot v Davies and Another    Copyright – Infringement – Reproduction – Plan of shop-front – Shop-front itself – Design –\r\nCopyright Act 1911 (c 46), s 22.\r\nThe plaintiff sent to the defendants, at their request, a blueprint plan and elevation of a shopfront\r\nand an estimate for the work. No order was given to the plaintiff for the erection of the\r\nshop-front. The shop-front was, however, erected for the defendants by a firm which worked\r\non a tracing of the plaintiff’s plan and elevation. The plaintiff brought an action against the\r\ndefendants for infringement of his copyright by authorising the reproduction of the plan. The\r\ndefendants contended that a plan could not be reproduced by a shop-front:—', 'CROSSMAN J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-22', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Copyright'),
(758, 'Hodge v Marsh', '', '../links/cases/Hodge v Marsh.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD MAUGHAM, SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Hodge v Marsh             Privy Council – Practice – Abatement by death of party – Death before appeal heard – Party\r\nnot appearing and not represented – Appeal in divorce matter – Reserved judgment prepared\r\n– Discovery of death of party.', 'LORD ALNESS', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-02', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: FAMILY; Divorce'),
(759, 'Chandler Bros Ltd v Boswell', '', '../links/cases/Chandler Bros Ltd v Boswell.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER AND GREENE LJJ AND MACKINNON J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Chandler Bros Ltd v Boswell    Building Contracts – Sub-contract – Notice to remove sub-contractor – Implied term as to\r\nimpossibility of performance – Implication of terms in sub-contracts – Quantum meruit.\r\nThe defendant, a contractor, had contracted to divert a road for a county council, and, as\r\nincidental to that purpose to make a tunnel. The work of excavating for the tunnel was subcontracted\r\nto a firm called Chandler Bros. This firm was later turned into a limited company\r\nand a receiver was appointed by the debenture holders. The receiver elected to complete the\r\nsub-contract, but, hampered by lack of money, he was unable to proceed with the work at the\r\nspeed the contract required. The head contract contained a clause giving the engineers of the\r\ncounty council, if they were dissatisfied with any sub-contractor, power to require his\r\nremoval. The sub-contract which contained many provisions in similar terms to those in the\r\nhead contract, contained no clause providing for the contingency of the engineers giving a\r\nnotice under the above clause. The engineers served such a notice.:—', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-16', 'CONSTRUCTION'),
(760, 'Hodgson v Salt', '', '../links/cases/Hodgson v Salt.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Hodgson v Salt        Limitation of actions – First and second mortgages vested in trustees – One common trustee –\r\nReceipt of rents for more than statutory period – Application by common trustee for benefit\r\nof first mortgagees in possession – Same hand to pay and receive.', 'CHANCERY DIVISION', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-31', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: LAND; Mortgages'),
(761, 'Chichester v Chichester', '', '../links/cases/Chichester v Chichester.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Chichester v Chichester     Husband and wife – Divorce – Petitions for variation of settlement and maintenance –\r\nProportion between amount secured and amount ordered to be paid – Deductions allowable in\r\nassessing maintenance – Covenant for benefit of children of former marriage – Supreme\r\nCourt of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, (c 49), s 190(1), (2).\r\nThe Registrar, in his report on a petition for maintenance by a wife, submitted that the\r\nrespondent should pay maintenance during the joint lives of the petitioner and the respondent\r\nat the rate of £272 a year, of which £200 a year should be secured. In arriving at this figure\r\nthe Registrar took into account, inter alia, a deed of covenant for the benefit of the\r\nrespondent’s children by a former marriage. The respondent contended that not more than\r\none third or a half of the amount awarded as maintenance should be secured.', 'SIR BOYD MERRIMAN P', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-12', 'FAMILY; Divorce'),
(762, 'Holland v German Property Administrator', '', '../links/cases/Holland v German Property Administrator.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Holland v German Property Administrator          Choses in Action – Assignment – Statutory order to pay – Notice – Treaty of Peace Order\r\n1919 (SR & O 1919, No 1517 (as amended)), s 1(17).\r\nSubject to a life interest for B, trustees held part of a trust fund in trust for D for life with\r\nremainder to her children. D, an English-woman married to an Englishman, at all material\r\ntimes lives with her family in Germany.', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-09', 'TRUSTS: INTERNATIONAL; Treaties'),
(763, 'Christie and Others v Lord Advocate', '', '../links/cases/Christie and Others v Lord Advocate.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD BLANESBURGH, LORD THANKERTON, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MACMILLAN, LORD ROCHE', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Christie and Others v Lord Advocate    Estate duty – Assessment of duty – Settled property – Property passing on death – Cesser of\r\nlife-rent interest – Finance Act 1894 (c 30), ss 1, 2(1)(b), 7(5), (7).\r\nA testator, who died in 1920, directed his trustees, inter alia, (i) to divide the balance of the\r\nannual income of the residue of his trust estate into ten equal shares, and to pay five of these\r\nshares to his widow, and one to each of his four daughters and his sister-in-law during their\r\nrespective lives; (ii) in the event of the death of any daughter leaving issue, to apply the share\r\nof the income payable to her for the maintenance of such issue until the youngest attained the\r\nage of 19, and thereafter to pay it in equal portions to such of them as were daughters during\r\ntheir lives; and (iii) after the death of the testator’s widow, to pay no beneficiary more than\r\n£600 per annum from the income of the trust.', 'LORD BLANESBURGH', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-06', 'TAXATION; Estates Duty'),
(764, 'Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Limited v Emmett', '', '../links/cases/Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Limited v Emmett.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Limited v Emmett    Nuisance – Acts done on own land – Unreasonable acts – Motive – Firing gun on edge of\r\nproperty.\r\nThe plaintiffs were breeders of silver foxes. The defendant, thinking a certain notice-board\r\nadvertising the plaintiffs’ farm was detrimental to his own property, asked the plaintiffs to\r\nremove it.', 'MACNAGHTEN J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-08', 'AGRICULTURE: ANIMALS: TORTS; Nuisance'),
(765, 'Churchill and Sim v Goddard', '', '../links/cases/Churchill and Sim v Goddard.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD ROCHE, SCOTT LJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Churchill and Sim v Goddard     Agency – Del credere agent – Buyer’s acceptance for price of goods – Rejection of goods –\r\nRight to sue upon bill of exchange.\r\nThe appellants acting as del credere agents on behalf of a firm of timber exporters in Finland\r\nsold a cargo of timber to the respondent. Thereupon the appellants, in accordance with the\r\ncontract of agency, paid the exporters the price of the timber, less their commission. In\r\naccordance with the contract of sale the respondent accepted two bills of exchange drawn by\r\nthe appellants for the price of the timber. Subsequently the respondent rightfully rejected the\r\ntimber. On presentation of the bills of exchange the respondent dishonoured his acceptances\r\nand the appellants then brought this action to recover upon the bills of exchange:—', 'LORD ROCHE', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-18', 'BANKING AND FINANCE: CONTRACT'),
(766, 'Clore v Theatrical Properties Ltd and Westby & Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Clore v Theatrical Properties Ltd and Westby.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Clore v Theatrical Properties Ltd and Westby & Co Ltd    Landlord and Tenant – Licence – Distinguished from lease – Enforcement by assignees –\r\nRestrictive covenants affecting property other than land – Agreement for front of the house\r\nrights.\r\nBy an indenture, which is ordinarily called an agreement for the front of the house rights of a\r\ntheatre, it was provided that: “the lessor doth hereby demise and grant unto the lessee the free\r\nand exclusive use of all the refreshment rooms … of the theatre … for the purpose only of the\r\nsupply to and the accommodation of the visitors to the theatre and for no other purpose\r\nwhatsoever.” There was a condition that the lease should not be assigned nor sublet except\r\nwith the lessor’s consent. The definition clause stated that the terms lessor and lessee should\r\ninclude their executors administrators and assigns. An assignee of the lessor sought to prevent\r\nassignees of the lessee from exercising any of the rights conferred upon the lessee by the\r\nindenture:—', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-27', 'LANDLORD AND TENANT; Leases'),
(767, 'Clubb v Wimpey & Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Clubb v Wimpe1.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, ROMER LJ AND MACNAGHTEN J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Clubb v Wimpey & Co Ltd    Introduction\r\nAn appeal in this case, reported in the court of first instance in [1936] 1 All ER 69, was\r\nallowed and a new trial ordered. The court neither approved nor expressly disapproved the\r\ndecision on the point reported in the court below.', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-16', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Evidence, Criminal Procedure'),
(768, 'Clubb v Wimpey & Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Clubb v Wimpey.pdf', 'Yes', 'CHARLES J AND A SPECIAL JURY', '1936', 'High Court', 'Clubb v Wimpey & Co Ltd    False Imprisonment – Giving in charge – Signing charge-sheet.\r\nS, an agent of the defendants, thinking the plaintiff guilty of larceny, gave him into custody\r\nand signed the charge-sheet. S stated in evidence: “I did give him in charge.”', 'CHARLES J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-03', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Evidence, Criminal Procedure'),
(769, 'Cole v PC 443A', '', '../links/cases/Cole v PC 443A.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Cole v PC 443A    Ecclesiastical Law – Divine service – Westminster Abbey – Right of member of public to\r\nattend – Right of public not parishioners.\r\nPrior to 1932 the plaintiff had acted as a guide to Westminster Abbey under a permit issued\r\nto him by the dean and chapter. The permit expired in March 1932. Renewal of the permit\r\nwas refused. When conducting tours around the abbey under his permit the plaintiff wore a\r\nbadge which was inscribed “Cole’s Sightseeing Tours Guide.” On 12 December 1935, the\r\nplaintiff, wearing this badge, was present at Divine service in the Abbey. There was nothing\r\nimproper in the plaintiff’s conduct. The dean had previously given orders that the plaintiff\r\nwas not to be allowed in the abbey. A police constable was called and, after requesting the\r\nplaintiff to leave, ejected him without unnecessary force. The plaintiff lodged an information\r\nagainst the police constable for assault:—', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-14', 'ECCLESIASTICAL'),
(770, 'Collings v Charles Bradbury Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Collings v Charles Bradbury Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Collings v Charles Bradbury Ltd    Money and moneylending – Memorandum – Promissory note payable by instalments – Postdated\r\ncheques in respect of instalments.\r\nA lady of no business experience borrowed money from moneylenders, and in respect of the\r\nloan gave them a promissory note payable by instalments and post-dated cheques in respect\r\nof the instalments. The cheques were handed over with the note before the transaction was\r\ncompleted. The interest secured by the notes was 81.23 per cent, and the moneylender knew\r\nthe borrower was a lady of some means but made no further inquiry on the matter:—', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-27', 'BANKING AND FINANCE'),
(771, 'Collingwood v Home and Colonial Stores Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Collingwood v Home and Colonial Stores Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, ROMER LJ AND MACNAGHTEN J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Collingwood v Home and Colonial Stores Ltd     Nuisance – Adjoining premises – Fire caused by fault in electric lighting circuit – Damage to\r\nadjoining premises by water – No negligence.\r\nIn premises adjoining those of the plaintiff a fire originated, due to some unknown defect in\r\nthe electrical wiring. The plaintiff’s premises were damaged by the water used for\r\nextinguishing the fire:—', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-20', 'TORTS; Nuisance'),
(772, 'Collingwood v Home & Colonial Stores Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Collingwood v Home.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Collingwood v Home & Colonial Stores Ltd     Nuisance – Adjoining premises – Fire caused by fault in electric lighting circuit – Damage to\r\nadjoining premises by water – No negligence.\r\nDamages – Erection of hoarding – Interference with access to premises.', 'GREAVES-LORD J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-27', 'TORTS; Nuisance'),
(773, 'Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal v Mercantile Bank of India Ltd and Others', '', '../links/cases/Commissioner of Income Tax.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD THANKERTON, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MAUGHAM, SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT, SIR SHADI LAL', '1036', 'Appeal', 'Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal v Mercantile Bank of India Ltd and Others     Income Tax – Company – Capitalisation of profits – Distribution of accumulated profits –\r\nIssue of debentures subsequently redeemed.\r\nCompanies having large accumulations of undistributed profits issued debentures to the\r\nholders of their preference shares. The debentures were dated 24 March 1931, and were\r\nrepayable at latest on 31 December 1940. They were in fact all redeemed prior to 28 February\r\n1933. All such preference shares, and therefore all the debentures, were held by trustees of\r\nthe will of the late Sir David Yule and the transaction was designed to enable them to meet\r\nthe very heavy duties payable in respect of his estate:—', 'LORD THANKERTON', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1036-05-20', 'COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries: COMPANY; Shares: TAXATION; Profits');
INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(774, 'Commissioners for Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom v Owners of MV “Valverda”', '', '../links/cases/Commissioners for Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom v Owners of MV.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Commissioners for Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom v Owners of MV\r\n“Valverda”    Shipping – Salvage – His Majesty’s Ships – Special agreement – Merchant Shipping Act\r\n1894 (c 60) s 557 – Merchant Shipping (Salvage) Act 1916 (c 41) s 1.\r\nThe “Valverda” was disabled and certain Admiralty vessels went to her assistance. As soon\r\nas the casualty was reported to the owners of the “Valverda,” they entered voluntarily into a\r\nsalvage agreement with the Admiralty. No distinction was made between the ships taking part\r\nin the salvage, of which some were specially equipped for salvage within the Merchant\r\nShipping (Salvage) Act 1916, s 1, and others were not. At the arbitration held under the\r\nsalvage agreement to fix the remuneration payable to the Admiralty, the arbitrator decided\r\nthat by virtue of the salvage agreement, the Admiralty were entitled to remuneration in\r\nrespect of all the ships which had assisted in the salvage, and he took into account the\r\nservices rendered both by the personnel and by the ships themselves. The owners contended\r\n(i) that the services rendered by the ships themselves ought not to be taken into account, and\r\n(ii) that by reason of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, s 557(1), the Admiralty were not\r\nentitled to remuneration in respect of those ships which were not specially equipped for\r\nsalvage and that as a matter of public policy no agreement for such remuneration was\r\nallowable:—', 'BRANSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-19', 'SHIPPING'),
(775, 'Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Crossman and Others Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Mann and Others', '', '../links/cases/Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Crossman and Others.pdf', 'Yes', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC, LORD BLANESBURGH, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MACMILLAN, LORD ROCHE', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Crossman and Others\r\nCommissioners of Inland Revenue v Mann and Others    Estate duty – Shares in company – Restrictions on alienation – Basis of valuation for estate\r\nduty purposes – Finance Act 1894 (c 30), s 7(5).\r\nBy the articles of association of a company a male holder of ordinary shares was given\r\nlimited powers of transferring such shares inter vivos or appointing them by will to any of his\r\nrelations specified in the articles subject to the transferees or appointees attaining the age of\r\ntwenty-five years and being approved by the directors. Otherwise a member, or his personal\r\nrepresentative, proposing to transfer any ordinary share was required to give written notice of\r\ntransfer to the company which enabled the company to offer the shares to other members\r\nholding one or more ordinary shares at a prescribed price ascertained in accordance with the\r\narticles. If, within three months of the service of the transfer notice, the company failed to\r\nfind a purchaser, the proposing transferor was permitted to sell the shares during the\r\nsucceeding three months to any person and at any price. The prescribed price in the articles\r\nwas much below the value of the shares if free from all limitations and restrictions. Estate\r\nduty in respect of ordinary shares which passed on the respective deaths of two male\r\nshareholders was duly paid by their executors upon the basis of the prescribed price fixed in\r\nconformity with the articles:—', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-27', 'TAXATION; Estate Duty'),
(776, 'Homer v Donisthorpe Colliery Company Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Homer v Donisthorpe Colliery Company Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'SCOTT LJJ, AND EVE J', '1936', 'Supreme', 'Homer v Donisthorpe Colliery Company Ltd     Workmen’s Compensation – Industrial disease – Medical referee’s certificate – Variation of\r\ncertifying surgeon’s certificate – Form – “Therefore” used instead of “thereby.”    ', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-22', 'EMPLOYMENT; Other Employment'),
(777, 'Commissioners of the Ancholme Drainage and Navigation (now known as The Ancholme Drainage Commissioners) v T P Wedhen (HM Inspector of Taxes)', '', '../links/cases/Commissioners of the Ancholme Drainage and Navigation.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Commissioners of the Ancholme Drainage and Navigation (now known as The\r\nAncholme Drainage Commissioners) v T P Wedhen (HM Inspector of Taxes)    Income Tax – Exemption – By statute – Public Act expressed in general terms – Ancholme\r\nDrainage Act 1767.\r\nBy the Ancholme Drainage Act 1767, the navigation, towing paths, etc, thereby authorised\r\nwere to be free to all persons upon payment of the tolls authorised by the Act and all taxes,\r\ntolls, etc, raised were to be “exempted from the payment of any taxes, rates, assessments or\r\nimpositions whatsoever; any law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding.” The Ancholme\r\nDrainage Commissioners were assessed for income tax, in respect of these tolls, the Crown\r\ncontending that the Act was purely local and that the exemption referred only to local\r\ntaxes:—', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-30', 'TAXATION; Income Tax'),
(778, 'Hoover Ltd v Air-Way Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Hoover Ltd v Air.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Hoover Ltd v Air-Way Ltd      Trade mark – Infringement – Sale of reconditioned goods – Trade Marks Act 1905 (c 15),\r\ns 39.\r\nThe defendants had reconditioned vacuum cleaners of the plaintiffs’ manufacture and had\r\nincluded in the reconditioned article certain parts not of the plaintiffs’ manufacture:—', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-05', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Trade Marks'),
(779, 'Hoover Ltd v Air-Way Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Hoover Ltd v Air.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Hoover Ltd v Air-Way Ltd      Trade mark – Infringement – Sale of reconditioned goods – Trade Marks Act 1905 (c 15),\r\ns 39.\r\nThe defendants had reconditioned vacuum cleaners of the plaintiffs’ manufacture and had\r\nincluded in the reconditioned article certain parts not of the plaintiffs’ manufacture:—', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-05', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Trade Marks'),
(780, 'Horn v Minister of Health', '', '../links/cases/Horn v Minister of Health.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Horn v Minister of Health    Public Health – Housing – Compulsory purchase order – Confirmation – Deputation from\r\nlocal authority to Minister – Absence of other party.', 'GREER,', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-24', 'HOUSING: LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(781, 'Howard v Furness Houlder Argentine Lines Ltd and A & R Brown Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Howard v Furness Houlder Argentine Lines Ltd and A.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Howard v Furness Houlder Argentine Lines Ltd and A & R Brown Ltd         Negligence – Escape of steam – Defective valve – Doctrine of Rylands v Fletcher – Fixing of\r\narticle not dangerous in itself but dangerous as fixed – Liability of contractor in tort.', 'LEWIS J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-25', 'TORTS; Negligence'),
(782, 'Howard v Odhams Press Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Howard v Odhams Press Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Howard v Odhams Press Ltd       Contract – Illegality – Public policy – Undertaking not to disclose to trade union a member’s\r\nconfession of wrongdoing – Damages.', 'PORTER J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-24', 'CONTRACT: CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(783, 'Conway v New Ideal Homesteads Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Conway v New Ideal Homesteads Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, ROMER LJ AND MACNAGHTEN J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Conway v New Ideal Homesteads Ltd     County Courts – Appeal – Claim less than £20 – Leave refused by county court judge –\r\nJurisdiction of Court of Appeal to hear appeal – County Courts Act 1888 (c 27), ss 120, 124.\r\nThe plaintiff in an action in the county court claimed £1 5s 4d damages for breach of\r\ncontract, and judgment was given in his favour for that amount. The defendants applied to the\r\ncounty court judge for leave to appeal, which was refused. The defendants thereupon applied\r\nto the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal, offering to pay the plaintiff’s costs in any event.\r\nThe attention of the Court of Appeal was not drawn to the County Courts Act 1888, s 120,\r\nand per incuriam the court gave leave to the defendants to appeal against the county court\r\njudge’s judgment. At the hearing of the appeal the plaintiff raised the preliminary objection\r\nthat the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the judgment of a county\r\ncourt judge in an action for breach of contract where the claim was for less than £20, when\r\nthe county court judge had not given leave to appeal:—', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-13', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Courts'),
(784, 'Cooper v Cooper, Parish (Intervener), Williams (Party Cited)', '', '../links/cases/Cooper v Cooper.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, SLESSER AND ROMER LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Cooper v Cooper, Parish (Intervener), Williams (Party Cited)    Divorce – Petition – Application for trial by special jury – Order by registrar for trial by\r\nspecial jury – Order reversed by President – Discretion – RSC Ord 54, r 12 – Martimonial\r\nCauses Rules 1924, r 30(B).\r\nOn the application of a petitioner seeking to obtain a divorce the registrar made an order that\r\nthe cause should be tried by a special jury. The President ordered that the registrar’s order be\r\nset aside and that the cause should be tried by a judge alone. The petitioner appealed\r\ncontending that the substantive discretion to grant a jury is vested in the registrar and is\r\nbinding upon the judge:—', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-27', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Juries: FAMILY; Divorce'),
(785, 'Hugh Crawford Magee, a Lunatic by Maude Louise Magee, his Committee v Charles W Magee and Others', '', '../links/cases/Hugh Crawford Magee.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MACMILLAN, SIR LYMAN POORE DUFF, SIR MICHAEL MYERS', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Hugh Crawford Magee, a Lunatic by Maude Louise Magee, his Committee v Charles W\r\nMagee and Others                Privy Council – British Columbia – Will – Construction – Discretion to make payment to\r\nsuch children as “shall appear to be most in need” – Discretionary power to divide the corpus\r\n– Time when such power may be exercised – Construction against intestacy.', 'LORD ATKIN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-27', 'SUCCESSION; Wills'),
(786, 'Corporation of City of Glasgow v Robertson or Cameron', '', '../links/cases/Corporation of City of Glasgow v Robertson or Cameron.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD BLANESBURGH, LORTD ATKIN, LORD THANKERTON, LORD MACMILLAN AND LORD MAUGHAM', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Corporation of City of Glasgow v Robertson or Cameron    Practice – Third party notice – Discretion of court to allow – Effect of notice to involve\r\nplaintiff in costly litigation, which may otherwise be avoided.\r\nA passenger in a private motor car belonging to and driven by her husband sustained injuries\r\nas a result of a collision with a Glasgow Corporation tramway car. She sued the corporation\r\nfor damages on the ground of negligence on the part of a servant of the corporation. In their\r\npleadings the corporation averred that the husband was solely to blame for the accident. After\r\nthe close of the pleadings the corporation, in terms of the Rules of the Court of Session, 1934,\r\nproposed a counter-issue of negligence on the part of the husband and asked for an order for\r\nservice of a third party notice upon him. The court held that the corporation had not\r\nrelevantly pleaded a right of contribution against', 'LORD BLANESBURGH', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-07', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Courts: CIVIL PROCEDURE: TRANSPORT; Road'),
(787, 'Craven v Blackpool Greyhound Stadium & Racecourse Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Craven v Blackpool Greyhound Stadium.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER AND SCOTT LJJ, AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Craven v Blackpool Greyhound Stadium & Racecourse Ltd    Companies – Winding up – Proof by creditor – Liquidator’s award – Dissatisfaction of\r\ncreditor – Action for damages – Stay.\r\nA director of a limited company, which went in to voluntary liquidation, put in a proof in the\r\nliquidation in respect of arrears of salary and damages for dismissal. The liquidator allowed\r\nthe proof. The director being dissatisfied with the amount awarded to him brought an action\r\nfor damages against the company in the King’s Bench Division. The company applied for a\r\nstay of the action on the ground that the director, if dissatisfied with the liquidator’s decision,\r\nshould appeal to a judge in the Chancery Division. The judge refused to stay the action. The\r\ncompany appealed:—', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-11-09', 'COMPANY; Insolvency'),
(788, 'Imperial Bank of Canada v Begley', '', '../links/cases/Imperial Bank of Canada v Begley.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD THANKERTON, LORD MAUGHAM, SIR GEORGE LOWNDES, SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Imperial Bank of Canada v Begley     Agency – Power of attorney – Exercise for agent’s own purposes – Estoppel by silence and\r\ndelay – Ratification.', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-28', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: CONTRACT'),
(789, 'Craven-Ellis v Canons Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Craven.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER AND GREENE LJJ, AND TALBOT J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Craven-Ellis v Canons Ltd    Contract – Implied contract – Quantum meruit – Work done under contract not binding upon\r\nparties – Whether inference of fact or inference imposed by rule of law.\r\nIn 1927 the plaintiff, an estate agent, was employed by W E Ltd for a term of three years in\r\nconnection with the development of a certain estate. On 15 April 1928, a company was\r\nformed, which purchased the estate, and the plaintiff and certain others were appointed\r\ndirectors of the company. Without express agreement between the company and the plaintiff,\r\nthe plaintiff continued his work in connection with the estate and the company received and\r\naccepted the services rendered. After acting for two months, none of the directors having\r\nacquired the necessary qualifications as set out in the articles of the company, they all became\r\nincapable of acting as directors.', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-06', 'CONTRACT'),
(790, 'In the Estate of Holland', '', '../links/cases/In the Estate of Holland.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'In the Estate of Holland\r\nExecutors and Administrators – Probate – Will – Appointment of executors – Four general\r\nexecutors and one literary executor – Number to whom grant may issue – Supreme Court of\r\nJudicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 (c 49), s 160(1).', 'BUCKNILL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-08-26', 'SUCCESSION; Administration of Estates'),
(791, 'In the Estate of Long, deceased', '', '../links/cases/In the Estate of Long.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'In the Estate of Long, deceased   \r\nWills – Form – Signature on same page as ordinary commencement – Evidence that signature\r\nwritten last – Wills Act Amendment Act 1852 (c 24).', 'SIR BOYD MERRIMAN P', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-02', 'SUCCESSION; Wills'),
(792, 'In the Estate of Musurus, deceased', '', '../links/cases/In the Estate of Musurus.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'In the Estate of Musurus, deceased\r\nConflict of Laws – Succession – Intestacy without heirs – Turkish domicile of intestate –\r\nPersonal property in England – Bona vacantia.', 'SIR BOYD MERRIMAN P', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-30', 'CONFLICT OF LAWS: SUCCESSION; Administration of Estates'),
(793, 'In the Estate of Nunn, deceased', '', '../links/cases/In the Estate of Nunn.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'In the Estate of Nunn, deceased\r\nWill – Mutilation – Strip cut out and ends joined – Presumption of revocation of part cut out\r\n– Wills Act 1837 (c 27) s 20.', 'SIR BOYD MERRIMAN P', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-02', 'SUCCESSION; Wills'),
(794, 'Inland Revenue Commissioners v Barnato', '', '../links/cases/Inland Revenue Commissioners v Barnato.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND ROMER LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Inland Revenue Commissioners v Barnato\r\nIncome Tax – Interest – Interest as damages – Claim for account – No allegation of fraud or\r\nbreach of trust – Interest allowed in account.', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-13', 'TAXATION; Assessment, Loss relief'),
(795, 'Inland Revenue Commissioners v Lieut-Colonel The Hon T C B Morgan-Grenville- Gavin', '', '../links/cases/Inland Revenue Commissioners v Lieut.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Inland Revenue Commissioners v Lieut-Colonel The Hon T C B Morgan-Grenville-\r\nGavin\r\nIncome Tax – Disposition for more than six years – Covenant with company – Taxpayer\r\nprincipal shareholder in company – Sham transaction – Finance Act 1922, s 20(1)(b).', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-07', 'COMPANY; Shareholders: TAXATION; Surtax'),
(796, 'Inland Revenue Commissioners v New Sharlston Collieries Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Inland Revenue Commissioners v New Sharlston Collieries Co Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Inland Revenue Commissioners v New Sharlston Collieries Co Ltd\r\nIncome tax – Mining lease – Right to let down surface – Easement – Finance Act 1934\r\n(c 32), s 21.\r\nIn a mining lease certain rents were reserved as consideration for the right to let down the\r\nsurface', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-27', 'TAXATION; Other Taxation'),
(797, 'Craze v Meyer-Dumore Bottlers’ Equipment Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Craze v Meyer.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER, GREENE AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Craze v Meyer-Dumore Bottlers’ Equipment Co Ltd    Factories and Shops – Dangerous machinery – Breach of statutory duty – Liability of\r\nemployer in negligence – Defence of contributory negligence.\r\nThe defendants installed in their factory a circular saw, which in breach of a statutory duty\r\nwas improperly fenced. A workman was injured while testing the machinery of the saw in a\r\nmanner which was held to be the direct cause of the accident. In an action for damages for\r\npersonal injuries, it was argued on behalf of the workman that, in order to prevent him from\r\nobtaining compensation based upon a breach of a statutory duty, there must be contributory\r\nnegligence on the part of the workman limited to acts done in breach of some order or done\r\noutside the ambit of his employment:—', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-26', 'HEALTH; Health and safety at work'),
(798, 'Inland Revenue Commissioners v Pearson', '', '../links/cases/Inland Revenue Commissioners v Pearson.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Inland Revenue Commissioners v Pearson\r\nIncome Tax – Tax-free dividend – Amount of income for purposes of sur-tax – Finance Act\r\n1931 (c 28), s 7(2).\r\nA cheque for dividends declared upon certain shares held by a tax-payer was accompanied by\r\na letter stating that the company had not exercised its statutory but optional right to deduct\r\nincome tax when paying these dividends and that therefore the dividends were being paid in\r\nfull and stating the amount that would have been deducted if the deduction had been made. In\r\nanother case a cheque for dividends declared upon certain shares held by a tax-payer was\r\naccompanied by a warrant which stated: “Gross dividend … £3,150. Amount actually paid,\r\n£3,150', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-28', 'TAXATION; Surtax'),
(799, 'Inland Revenue Commissioners v Thompson (Receiver for the First and Second Debenture Holders of John A Wood Limited)', '', '../links/cases/Inland Revenue Commissioners v Thompson.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Inland Revenue Commissioners v Thompson (Receiver for the First and Second\r\nDebenture Holders of John A Wood Limited)\r\n\r\nIncome Tax – Receiver appointed by debenture holders – Assessment in respect of income of\r\ncompany – Income Tax Act 1918 (c 40) sched D, miscellaneous rules r 1.', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-28', 'COMPANY; Insolvency: TAXATION; Corporation Tax'),
(800, 'Cripps v Cooper', '', '../links/cases/Cripps v Cooper.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Cripps v Cooper    Street Traffic – Motor trailer – Indivisible load of exceptional length – Motor Vehicles\r\n(Construction and Use) Regulations, 1931, regs 62, 85.\r\nAppellant used on the road a motor-drawn trailer loaded with five fir trees, securely fixed,\r\nwhich projected over the back of the trailer for 32 ft. He was convicted at petty sessions for\r\nusing a trailer in such a condition that danger was likely to be caused, in breach of the Motor\r\nVehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1931, regs 62, 85. He appealed to quarter\r\nsessions on the ground that reg 51 provides that a trailer may exceed 22 ft in length if\r\nconstructed and normally used for the conveyance of indivisible loads of exceptional length;\r\nthis appeal was dismissed:—', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-28', 'CRIMINAL; Road Traffic: TRANSPORT; Road'),
(801, 'Cromie v Moore', '', '../links/cases/Cromie v Moore.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER AND GREENE LJJ, AND TALBOT J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Cromie v Moore     Practice – Writ of summons for breach of contract – Service out of the jurisdiction –\r\nEvidence of contract with defendant – RSC Ord 11, rr 1(e), 4.\r\nA plaintiff obtained leave to serve notice of a writ for breach of contract, on the defendant out\r\nof the jurisdiction. The defendant appealed, submitting that the statement of claim, affidavit,\r\nand letters attached did not show a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, but only\r\nbetween the plaintiff and a co-director of the defendant acting as agent for a company of\r\nwhich the defendant was chairman:—', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-04', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: CONTRACT'),
(802, 'Cross v Gatineau Power Company', '', '../links/cases/Cross v Gatineau Power Company.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD BLANESBURGH, LORD MAUGHAM, LORD ROCHE', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Cross v Gatineau Power Company     Privy Council – Canada – Compulsory expropriation of land – Hydro-electric power\r\ncompany – Statutory powers – Whether all affected property to be vested in power company.\r\nThe appellant owned property on the Gatineau River, including a saw mill used for his timber\r\nbusiness and a plant for the production and distribution of electricity, both worked by water\r\npower. The respondents were attempting to expropriate for the purposes of a scheme for\r\ndevelopment of hydro-electric power on the river, and had erected a dam with the result that\r\nmuch of his property was submerged and other seriously affected. An action in respect of this\r\ndamage had proceeded to trial, and judgment had been reserved, when a special Act was\r\npassed by the Quebec Legislature to prevent any disturbance of the respondents’ operations.\r\nThe respondents were by the Act to make just and fair compensation to the appellant for all\r\nhis properties and rights taken or affected, and the court was to determine what properties and\r\nrights should upon payment of the compensation become vested in the respondents:—', 'LORD BLANESBURGH', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-29', 'COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries: TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING'),
(803, 'International Trustee for the Protection of Bondholders Aktiengesellschaft v R', '', '../links/cases/International Trustee for the Protection of Bondholders Aktiengesellschaft v R.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND ROMER LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'International Trustee for the Protection of Bondholders Aktiengesellschaft v R\r\nMoney – Currency – Bond – Gold clause – American legislation – Effect of option to pay in\r\nEngland.\r\nThe suppliant was the holder of a 20-year 5½ per cent coupon gold bond whereby the British\r\nGovernment promised to pay the bearer or registered holder $1,000 on 1 February 1937, and\r\ninterest at 5½ per cent in the meantime, such principal and interest to be payable at the option\r\nof the holder in New York or London, and if in New York, in gold coin of the USA of the\r\nstandard weight and fineness existing on 1 February 1917,', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-11-02', 'BANKING AND FINANCE'),
(804, 'Croxford v Universal Insurance Co Ltd Norman v Gresham Fire & Accident Insurance Society Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Croxford v Universal Insurance Co Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Croxford v Universal Insurance Co Ltd\r\nNorman v Gresham Fire & Accident Insurance Society Ltd    Insurance – Accident – Motor car – Third party risks – Retrospective operation of Statute –\r\nRoad Traffic Act 1934 (c 50), s 10.\r\n(i) An accident occurred on 13 June 1934. On 29 June the insurance company repudiated the\r\npolicy and demanded the return of the certificate of insurance. On 12 July this was returned\r\nand cancelled. On 31 July the Road Traffic Act 1934, received the Royal Assent. On 3\r\nAugust an action was commenced against the assured, and damages were awarded against\r\nhim on 6 February 1935. On 1 January 1935, the Road Traffic Act 1934, s 10 came into\r\noperation. The plaintiffs in the action then sought in a further action to render the insurance\r\ncompany liable to pay the damages awarded them:—', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-18', 'INSURANCE'),
(805, 'Croydon Corporation v Oldaker', '', '../links/cases/Croydon Corporation v Oldaker.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, BRANSON AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Croydon Corporation v Oldaker    Highways – Street works – Recovery of expenses – “Owner in default” – Public Health Act\r\n1875 (c 55), ss 150, 257 – Croydon Corporation Act 1884 (c cxli), s 39.\r\nBy the Croydon Corporation Act 1884, s 39, it is provided that whenever the corporation put\r\nin force the provisions of the Public Health Act 1875, s 150, “they may before themselves\r\nexecuting any works as therein provided recover in a summary manner the amount of the\r\nestimated cost thereof from the owners in default.” On 27 June 1935, the local authority\r\nserved a notice, under the Public Health Act 1875, s 150, upon the respondent, under the\r\nCroydon Corporation Act 1884, s 39, demanding payment of certain sums in respect of the\r\nestimated cost of the works, which works had not then been executed. The respondent refused\r\nto pay any part of the amount claimed and the local authority thereupon on 20 December\r\n1935, lodged a complaint claiming payment. The magistrates were of opinion that there could\r\nbe no default until the expiration of the time given in the notice to repair, and that as at the\r\nexpiration of that time the respondent was no longer the owner of the premises, the\r\nrespondent was not the “owner in default” within the Croydon Corporation Act 1884, s 39,\r\nand they held that he was not liable to pay the amount claimed. The local authority\r\nappealed:—', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-21', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(806, 'Interoven Stove Co Ltd v F W H Hibbard and P F Painter (Trading as Odell, Hibbard & Co) and Sir H Percy Shepherd', '', '../links/cases/Interoven Stove Co Ltd v F W H Hibbard and P F Painter.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Interoven Stove Co Ltd v F W H Hibbard and P F Painter (Trading as Odell, Hibbard\r\n& Co) and Sir H Percy Shepherd\r\nDistress – Illegal distress – Substantial damages – Law of Distress Amendment Act 1908 (c\r\n53), ss 1(c), 2, 4(2)(b).\r\nThe plaintiffs had an agreement with certain manufacturers to have the goods purchased from\r\nthem, stored at the manufacturers’ premises until such time as they might take delivery. The\r\ngoods were not stored continuously in the same room, but the room was changed from time\r\nto time to suit the convenience of the', 'HILBERY J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-07', 'CONTRACT: SALE OF GOODS'),
(807, 'Crozier v Wishart & Company Limited and Western Printing Services Ltd [1936]', '', '../links/cases/Crozier v Wishart.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Crozier v Wishart & Company Limited and Western Printing Services Ltd [1936]    Discovery – Interrogatories – Libel – Author not a party – Printer’s information as to state of\r\nauthor’s mind at date of publication.\r\nThe plaintiff sued for libel the printers and publishers of a book containing what he alleged to\r\nbe matter defamatory of him, but did not join the author as a defendant. He sought to\r\ninterrogate the defendant as to the information possessed by the author which had induced the\r\nauthor to believe that the expressions of opinion contained in the matter complained of\r\n(which the defendants pleaded were fair comment) were true.', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-29', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: TORTS; Defamation'),
(808, 'Davis v Lisle', '', '../links/cases/Davis v Lisle.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Davis v Lisle    Police – Execution of duty – Entry upon premises without search warrant – Refusal to leave\r\nwhen asked – Assault.\r\nTwo police officers, one in uniform and the other in plain clothes, seeing in a garage a motor\r\nlorry which had earlier been causing what the police officers thought to be an obstruction,\r\nentered the garage to make inquiries as to the person responsible for the obstruction. Neither\r\nhad asked nor obtained permission to enter, and neither had a search warrant nor was\r\nauthorised to enter. As the officer in plain clothes was speaking to the men who were\r\nattending to the lorry, the occupier of the garage came in and in strong terms told the police\r\nofficers to leave the premises. The officer in plain clothes proceeded to take out his warrant\r\ncard, whereupon the occupier assaulted him. Charges were brought against the occupier inter\r\nalia for assaulting and for obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty as such\r\nconstable, and he was convicted. The occupier appealed:—', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-30', 'CRIMINAL; Police'),
(809, 'Ireland v Wilson', '', '../links/cases/Ireland v Wilson.pdf', 'Yes', 'SWIFT AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Supreme', 'Ireland v WilsonIreland v Wilson\r\nPublic Health – Bye-law – Validity – Conduct of drivers of hackney carriages.\r\nBy a local Act, a local authority was empowered to make such bye-laws as it thought fit for,\r\ninter alia, the regulating of hackney carriages and carts plying for hire within the borough and\r\nfor regulating the conduct of', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-28', 'HEALTH; Public health'),
(810, 'Izzard v Universal Insurance Co', '', '../links/cases/Izzard v Universal Insurance Co.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Izzard v Universal Insurance Co\r\nInsurance – Third party risks – Passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of\r\nemployment – Road Traffic Act 1930 (c 43), s 36(1)(b)(ii).', 'MACKINNON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-30', 'INSURANCE'),
(811, 'Davis & Co Ltd v Brunswick (Australia) Ltd, Brunswicke-Balke-Collender Co and Brunswick Radio Corporation', '', '../links/cases/Davis.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD BLANESBURGH, LORD MAUGHAM AND SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Davis & Co Ltd v Brunswick (Australia) Ltd,\r\nBrunswicke-Balke-Collender Co and Brunswick Radio Corporation     Company – Winding up – Petition – Opposition – “Just and equitable” – Companies Act\r\n1929 (c 23), Imp s 168(6) – New South Wales Companies Act 1899, s 84(e).\r\nThe New South Wales Companies Act 1899, s 84(e) is identical with the English Companies\r\nAct 1929, s 168(6), and provides for winding up by the Court when, in the opinion of the\r\nCourt, it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up.', 'LORD BLANESBURGH', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-30', 'COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries: COMPANY; Insolvency'),
(812, 'Izzard v Universal Insurance Company Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Izzard v Universal Insurance Company Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Izzard v Universal Insurance Company Ltd\r\nInsurance – Third party risks – Passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of\r\nemployment – Road Traffic Act 1930 (c 43), s 36(1)(b)(ii).', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-30', 'INSURANCE'),
(813, 'De La Rue v Hernu, Peron & Stockwell Ltd', '', '../links/cases/De La Rue v Hernu.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER AND GREENE LJJ, AND TALBOT J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'De La Rue v Hernu, Peron & Stockwell Ltd     Interpleader – Property stored by wife – Claim by husband against warehouseman – Right of\r\nwarehouseman to interplead – Order directing issue between husband and wife – Jurisdiction\r\nto make such order – Married Women’s Property Act 1882 (c 75), ss 12, 17 – RSC Ord 57,\r\nr 7.\r\nA wife deposited certain goods for storage with a firm of warehousemen. Her husband,\r\nclaiming that the goods were his property issued a writ in detinue against the warehousemen\r\nfor the delivery up of the goods, and obtained an order for an interim injunction restraining\r\nthem for one month from parting with possession of the goods. The wife threatened to\r\ninstitute proceedings to prevent the warehousemen from delivering the goods to the husband,\r\nwhereupon the warehousemen took out an interpleader summons and an order was made by\r\nthe master staying all proceedings in the action of the husband. He further ordered that no\r\naction be brought by either the husband or the wife against the warehousemen and that the\r\nparties should proceed to the trial of an issue, in which the husband was to be the plaintiff and\r\nthe wife the defendant, before a master to have the ownership of the goods decided. The wife\r\nappealed against the order contending that there was no jurisdiction in an interpleader issue to\r\nmake a husband the plaintiff and a wife the defendant. The judge in chambers dismissed the\r\nappeal. The wife appealed to the Court of Appeal:—', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-28', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: FAMILY; Family Proceedings'),
(814, 'J P Hughes (HM Inspector of Taxes) v The Bank of New Zealand The Bank of New Zealand v J P Hughes (HM Inspector of Taxes)', '', '../links/cases/J P Hughes.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'J P Hughes (HM Inspector of Taxes) v The Bank of New Zealand\r\nThe Bank of New Zealand v J P Hughes (HM Inspector of Taxes)\r\nIncome Tax – Non-resident trader – Interest on government securities – Interest on securities\r\nof foreign and colonial companies – Expenses of earning profits exempt from tax – Income\r\nTax Act 1918 (c 40) s 46 Sched C r 2(d), Sched D, Cases I and II, rr 3, 5.', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-01', 'BANKING AND FINANCE: COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries: TAXATION; Profits'),
(815, 'Jackson v Jackson and Barwell', '', '../links/cases/Jackson v Jackson and Barwell.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Jackson v Jackson and Barwell\r\nDivorce – Costs – Husband suing as poor person – Profit costs – Special circumstance –\r\nAbility of co-respondent to pay – RSC Ord 16, r 31B(2).', 'BUCKNILL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-24', 'FAMILY; Ancillary Finance and Property'),
(816, 'Jacobs v Jacobs and Solomon', '', '../links/cases/Jacobs v Jacobs and Solomon.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Jacobs v Jacobs and Solomon\r\nDivorce – Evidence – Overheard telephone conversations – Tapping of telephone –\r\nRefreshing memory – Costs.', 'LANGTON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-24', 'FAMILY; Divorce'),
(817, 'Dennis v Willmore', '', '../links/cases/Dennis v Willmore.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, DU PARCQ AND SINGLETON JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Dennis v Willmore    Metropolis – Street trading – Licences – Duration – London County Council (General\r\nPowers) Act 1927 (c xxii), s 39.\r\nThe respondent sold apples from a barrow in a street within the Metropolitan Borough of\r\nPoplar. It was the custom of the Poplar Borough Council to issue one-day licences to street\r\ntraders, but though the respondent had been issued with several of these licences in the past,\r\nhe was not in possession of one on the day in question. He was summoned for selling goods\r\nfrom a barrow without a licence contrary to LCC (General Powers) Act 1927, s 39. The\r\nlearned magistrate dismissed the summons on the ground that the borough council having\r\ngranted a licence, they could not dispute its validity; and also upon the ground that the\r\nprosecution was instituted to test the system of one-day licences and was not bona fide:—', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-26', 'LEISURE AND LICENSING: LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(818, 'Desoutter Bros Limited v J E Hanger & Co Limited and Artificial Limb Makers Limited', '', '../links/cases/Desoutter Bros Limited v J E Hanger.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Desoutter Bros Limited v J E Hanger & Co Limited and Artificial Limb Makers\r\nLimited   Income tax – Royalty – Sum paid in advance for anticipated use of patent.\r\nBy an agreement in writing dated 22 December 1934, the plaintiffs granted to the defendants\r\na licence to make use, exercise and vend (for certain specified purposes and over a certain\r\nspecified period) artificial legs or leg parts made in accordance with a patented invention of\r\nthe plaintiffs. In consideration of the licence and of the anticipated user of the invention the\r\ndefendants agreed to pay to the plaintiffs £3,000, £1,000 down and the remainder by\r\ninstalments. In discharge of one instalment the defendants paid £387 10s, being £500 less\r\nincome tax at the current rate. The plaintiffs contended that the sum of £500 was not income\r\nof the plaintiffs from which any income tax was lawfully deductable, but was an instalment\r\nof a capital sum and accordingly was capital:—', 'MACKINNON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-28', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Patents: TAXATION; Income Tax'),
(819, 'James Holland Rich v London Passenger Transport Board', '', '../links/cases/James Holland Rich v London Passenger Transport Board.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER LJ AND CHARLES J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'James Holland Rich v London Passenger Transport Board\r\nPublic Authorities – Compensation for loss of office – Limit of amount of compensation –\r\nAnnuity or lump sum – Option of officer – Pensions Commutation Acts 1871–1882 –\r\nLondon Passenger Transport Act 1933 (c 14), s 73(6), Sched 14.', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-02', 'ADMINISTRATIVE; TRANSPORT; Other Transport'),
(820, 'James v Commonwealth of Australia and State of New South Wales and Others (Interveners)', '', '../links/cases/James v Commonwealth of Australia and State of New South Wales and Others.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD WRIGHT MR, SIR GEORGE LOWNDES AND SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT', '1936', 'Appeal', 'James v Commonwealth of Australia and State of New South Wales and Others\r\n(Interveners)\r\nPrivy Council – Australia – Freedom of inter-state trade – “Absolutely free” – Validity of\r\nDried Fruits Act 1928–1935, of the Commonwealth Parliament and regulations made\r\nthereunder – Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (c 12), ss 51, 92.', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-19', 'ADMINISTRATIVE: COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries: CONFLICT OF LAWS'),
(821, 'Jennings v Stephens', '', '../links/cases/Jennings v Stephens.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Jennings v Stephens\r\nCopyright – Performance in public – Copyright Act 1911 (c 46) s 1(2).\r\nThe Duston Women’s Institute was a village institute holding monthly meetings of a social or\r\neducational nature for the purpose of encouraging music, drama, and dancing. No charge was\r\nmade for admission other than an annual subscription of 2s, which included membership of\r\nthe Institute. At one of such meetings a play was performed by and for members only, and no\r\nguests or members of the public were in fact admitted:—', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-11', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Copyright'),
(822, 'Diamantidi v Grosvenor Securities Limited and The Guildhall Trust Limited', '', '../links/cases/Diamantidi v Grosvenor Securities Limited and The Guildhall Trust Limited.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Diamantidi v Grosvenor Securities Limited and The Guildhall Trust Limited    Companies – Sale of shares – Condition of solvency – Ascertainment of solvency.\r\nUpon a sale of 50,000 shares in a limited company it was agreed that the sale should be\r\nsubject to an accountant appointed by the purchasers being “satisfied that the financial\r\nposition of” the vendor company was “solvent”:—', 'MACNAGHTEN J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-06', 'COMPANY; Shares'),
(823, 'Jensen v Hollis Bros & Company Limited', '', '../links/cases/Jensen v Hollis Bros.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Jensen v Hollis Bros & Company Limited\r\nShipping – Charter-party – Construction – “Expected ready to load” – Impossible date.\r\nBy a charter-party, dated 30 August 1934, the plaintiffs agreed to load certain timber at the\r\n“end of August 1934.” There was an option to cancel the charter-party if a vessel was not\r\nready to load on or before 20 September 1934. The vessel was, in fact, ready for loading on\r\n27 September 1934:—', 'BRANSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-04', 'SHIPPING'),
(824, 'Jervis v Howle', '', '../links/cases/Jervis v Howle.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Jervis v Howle\r\nMistake – Rectification – Covenant to pay sum “free of tax” – Words used ineffectual to\r\nsecure result.\r\nIn a deed intended to secure a royalty on coal, the royalty was reserved thus: “together with a\r\nroyalty of 3d per ton on all coal sold by the lessee, such royalty to be paid free of tax.” It was\r\nproved that the intention of both parties was that a clear sum of 3d should be received as\r\nroyalty in respect of each ton of coal.', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-15', 'CONTRACT'),
(825, 'Joel, Johnson v Joel', '', '../links/cases/Joel.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Joel, Johnson v Joel\r\nSettlements – Tenant for life and remainderman – Dividends – Paid out of past profits – Year\r\nto which dividends attributable – Call on shares – Satisfied out of dividends – Capital or\r\nincome.', 'FARWELL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-26', 'COMPANY; Shares: TAXATION; Settlement'),
(826, 'Johann Plischke & Sohne GmbH v Allison Brothers Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Johann Plischke.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Johann Plischke & Sohne GmbH v Allison Brothers Ltd\r\nCarriers – Stoppage in transitu – “Free house, London” – Termination of transit.\r\nNapier Bros having ordered goods from the plaintiffs these were dispatched from Hamburg to\r\nLondon by steamer. According to the confirmation of the order the terms of the contract were\r\n“Free house, London.”', 'BRANSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-01', 'CONTRACT: SALE OF GOODS'),
(827, 'John Lane, The Bodley Head Ltd v Associated Newspapers Ltd', '', '../links/cases/John Lane.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'John Lane, The Bodley Head Ltd v Associated Newspapers Ltd\r\nCopyright – Infringement – Innocence as a statutory defence – Copyright Act 1911, (c 46),\r\ns 8.\r\nIn an action for damages (i) for infringement of the copyright in a certain publication, and (ii)\r\nfor conversion, the defendants admitted the infringement, but contended that, as they were\r\nnot aware and had no reasonable ground for suspecting that copyright subsisted in any work\r\nof which the copyright had been infringed by the printing and publishing the story\r\ncomplained of, they were protected by the Copyright Act 1911, s 8.', 'DU PARCQ J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-14', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Copyright'),
(828, 'Jones v Smith', '', '../links/cases/Jones v Smith.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREENE AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Jones v Smith\r\nMaster and servant – Workmen’s compensation – Approbation of award by accepting costs.\r\nAn injured workman was awarded a weekly payment by way of compensation, and costs. The\r\ncosts were duly taxed and paid. The workman then sought to appeal against the quantum of\r\nthe award:—', 'SLESSER, ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-30', 'HEALTH; Health and safety at work: QUANTUM'),
(829, 'Kearns v Gee, Walker & Slater Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Kearns v Gee.pdf', 'Yes', 'SCOTT LJJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Kearns v Gee, Walker & Slater Ltd\r\nNegligence – Statutory duty – Breach – Building construction – Electric crane – “Worked by\r\nmechanical power” – Protection of workman – “Part of premises in which any person is\r\nhabitually employed” – Building Regulations 1926 (SR & O 1926, No 738), reg 31.', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-15', 'TORTS; Negligence; Statutory Duty'),
(830, 'Kenyon v Darwen Cotton Manufacturing Company Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Kenyon v Darwen Cotton Manufacturing Company Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'SCOTT LJJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Kenyon v Darwen Cotton Manufacturing Company Ltd\r\nFactories – Truck Acts – Deductions from wages – Scheme for re-opening factory –\r\nEmployee’s shares – Payment by instalment – Truck Act 1831, ss 1, 2, 3, 4, 25 – Truck\r\nAmendment Act 1887, ss 1, 2, 14 Sched.', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-14', 'EMPLOYMENT; Contract of Service: INDUSTRY'),
(831, 'Kirk v Eustace', '', '../links/cases/Kirk v Eustace.pdf', 'Yes', 'SCOTT LJJ, AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Kirk v Eustace\r\nHusband and wife – Separation deed – Payment to wife “during her life” – Death of husband\r\n– Liability of husband’s estate for payments – Law of Property Act 1925 (c 20), s 80(1).', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-11-02', 'FAMILY; Ancillary Finance and Property'),
(832, 'Kitchener v Evening Standard Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Kitchener v Evening Standard Co Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Kitchener v Evening Standard Co Ltd\r\nTime – Sunday entertainments – Advertisement – All-in Wrestling – No free admission –\r\nSunday Observance Act 1780 (c 49) ss 1, 3.\r\nOn 17 days between 15 June and 12 October 1935, the defendants published advertisements\r\nof public exhibitions of all-in wrestling to be held on 17 Sundays between 16 June and 13\r\nOctober 1935.', 'ATKINSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-20', 'COMMUNICATIONS: LEISURE AND LICENSING'),
(833, 'Knapp-Fisher v Crisp', '', '../links/cases/Knapp.pdf', 'Yes', 'SCOTT LJJ, AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Knapp-Fisher v Crisp\r\nPractice – Summary judgment – Leave to defend – Parol agreement varying agreement\r\nwithin Statute of Frauds – Part performance – RSC Ord 14.\r\nThe plaintiff, a legal mortgagee, brought an action to recover possession of the mortgaged\r\nland, and applied for judgment under RSC Ord 14.\r\n', 'GREER ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-11-10', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE'),
(834, 'Knowles v Southern Railway Company', '', '../links/cases/', 'NO', 'GREENE AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'High Court', 'Knowles v Southern Railway Company\r\nMaster and Servant – Workmen’s compensation – Accident – “Arising out of and in the\r\ncourse of the employment” – “For the purposes of and in connection with his employer’s\r\ntrade or business” – Van driver leaving van to visit public house – Prohibition by employers\r\nagainst consuming intoxicating liquor while on duty – Accident while mounting van box –\r\nWorkmen’s Compensation Act 1925 (c 84) s 1(1), (2).', 'SLESSER, ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-07', 'HEALTH; Health and safety at work'),
(835, 'Knowles v Southern Railway Company', '', '../links/cases/', 'nO', 'GREENE AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'High Court', 'Knowles v Southern Railway Company\r\nMaster and Servant – Workmen’s compensation – Accident – “Arising out of and in the\r\ncourse of the employment” – “For the purposes of and in connection with his employer’s\r\ntrade or business” – Van driver leaving van to visit public house – Prohibition by employers\r\nagainst consuming intoxicating liquor while on duty – Accident while mounting van box –\r\nWorkmen’s Compensation Act 1925 (c 84) s 1(1), (2).', 'SLESSER, ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-07', 'HEALTH; Health and safety at work');
INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(836, 'Kulukundis v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society', '', '../links/cases/Kulukundis v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREENE AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Kulukundis v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society\r\nInsurance – Marine insurance – Freight policy – Institute Voyage Clauses – Perils of the sea –\r\nShip and cargo abandoned to salvors – Cost of repair for completion of contracted voyage.', 'SLESSER,', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-15', 'INSURANCE: SHIPPING'),
(837, 'Lambert v Lambert', '', '../links/cases/Lambert v Lambert.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Lambert v Lambert\r\nDivorce – Maintenance – Order by consent – Term barring liberty to apply to vary – Change\r\nof circumstances – Petition for reduction of maintenance – Whether petition will lie', 'LANGTON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-23', 'FAMILY; Ancillary Finance and Property'),
(838, 'Latter v Colwill', '', '../links/cases/Latter v Colwill.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Latter v Colwill\r\nAgreement for payment by instalments – Whole sum to become due upon default – One\r\ninstalment the delivery of specified articles – Value to be given to specified articles.', 'MACKINNON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-03', 'CONTRACT'),
(839, 'Ledwith and Another v Roberts and Another', '', '../links/cases/Ledwith and Another v Roberts and Another.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREENE AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Ledwith and Another v Roberts and Another\r\nCriminal Law – Arrest – Without warrant – Under statutory provisions – “Suspected person\r\nor reputed thief” – “Loose, idle or disorderly person” – Vagrancy Act 1824 (c 83), ss 4, 6 –\r\nLiverpool Corporation Act 1921 (c lxxiv), s 513.', 'GREER, ', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-12', 'CRIMINAL; Police'),
(840, 'Leeman v Montagu', '', '../links/cases/Leeman v Montagu.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Leeman v Montagu\r\nNuisance – Adjoining owners – Noise – Poultry farm.\r\nThe plaintiff purchased a house in a partly rural, but largely residential district. Adjoining this\r\nhouse was a poultry farm, and about 100 yards from the plaintiff’s house was an orchard in\r\nwhich the poultry farmer kept large numbers of cockerels. The plaintiff complained of the\r\nnoise made by the cockerels in the early mornings, and threatened proceedings unless they\r\nwere removed.', 'GREAVES-LORD J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-10', 'AGRICULTURE: TORTS; Nuisance'),
(841, 'Leeson v Leeson', '', '../links/cases/Leeson v Leeson.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREENE LJJ, AND TALBOT J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Leeson v Leeson\r\nContract – Payment – Appropriation – Payment by debtor of a lesser sum than that due on\r\ntwo separate debts – Appropriation to one of the debts – Necessity for communication to the\r\ncreditor.', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-24', 'CONTRACT: FAMILY; Ancillary Finance and Property'),
(842, 'Lindsey County Council v Marshall', '', '../links/cases/Lindsey County Council v Marshall.pdf', 'Yes', 'VISCOUNT SANKEY, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MACMILLAN AND LORD WRIGHT MR', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Lindsey County Council v Marshall\r\nMedicine – Maternity home provided and controlled by county council – Incoming patient\r\nnot warned of infection – Recent case of puerperal fever – Disease contracted by patient –\r\nCounty Council’s liability for negligence of professional staff.', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-14', 'HEALTH; Medicine: LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(843, 'Liverpool Corn Trade Association Limited v Hurst and others', '', '../links/cases/Liverpool Corn Trade Association Limited v Hurst and others.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Liverpool Corn Trade Association Limited v Hurst and others\r\nCompanies – Association for promoting interests of the corn trade – Meaning of “members of\r\nthe association” – Guarantee – Joint guarantee – Release of one joint guarantor – Right of\r\nassociation to sue.', 'MACKINNON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-11', 'COMPANY; Shareholders'),
(844, 'Liverpool Corporation and others v Lancashire County Council and others', '', '../links/cases/Liverpool Corporation and others v Lancashire County Council and others.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Liverpool Corporation and others v Lancashire County Council and others\r\nLocal Government – Local taxation licences – Distribution of proceeds between county and\r\ncounty boroughs – Local Government Act 1929 (c 17) s 85(5).', 'LUXMOORE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-22', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(845, 'Liverpool Corporation and others v Lancashire County Council and others', '', '../links/cases/Liverpool Corporation and others v Lancashire County Council and others.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Liverpool Corporation and others v Lancashire County Council and others\r\nLocal Government – Local taxation licences – Distribution of proceeds between county and\r\ncounty boroughs – Local Government Act 1929 (c 17) s 85(5).', 'LUXMOORE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-22', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(846, 'London & North Eastern Railway Co v County Council of the North Riding of Yorkshire', '', '../links/cases/London.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MACMILLAN AND LORD MAUGHAM', '1936', 'Appeal', 'London & North Eastern Railway Co v County Council of the North Riding of\r\nYorkshire\r\nRailways – Public highway – Bridge – Repair of roadway – Great North of England Railway\r\nAct 1837 (c cii), ss 31, 33, 35.', 'LORD BLANESBURGH', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-10', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT: TRANSPORT; Rail'),
(847, 'London County Council v Cambridgeshire County Council', '', '../links/cases/London County Council v Cambridgeshire County Council.pdf', 'Yes', 'DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'London County Council v Cambridgeshire County Council\r\nLunatics – Mental deficiency – Determination of residence – Mental Deficiency Act 1913\r\n(c 28), s 44.\r\nA mental defective found guilty before justices of an offence was ordered to be placed in a\r\ncertified institution. The offence was committed in Cambridgeshire. He had lived in London\r\nuntil he was eighteen and thereafter had wandered about the country, being employed and\r\nliving in different places:—', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-21', 'CRIMINAL; Sentencing: HEALTH; Mental health: LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(848, 'London County Council v Downes', '', '../links/cases/London County Council v Downes.pdf', 'Yes', 'MACNAGHTEN AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'London County Council v Downes\r\nPoor Law – Order for maintenance – Enforcement.\r\nIn 1910 B was ordered by a metropolitan magistrate under the Poor Law Amendment Act\r\n1868, s 33, to pay to the then Poor Law Authority 2s per week towards the maintenance of his\r\nwife. In 1935 B’s payments had fallen in arrear. A complaint made by the Poor Law\r\nAuthority was dismissed by the magistrate who', 'TALBOT', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-10', 'FAMILY; Ancillary Finance and Property: LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(849, 'London County Freehold & Leasehold Properties Ltd v Berkeley Property and Investment Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/London County Freehold.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER LJJ, AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'London County Freehold & Leasehold Properties Ltd v Berkeley Property and\r\nInvestment Co Ltd\r\nAgency – Principal’s liability for tort – Separation of representation and guilty knowledge –\r\nCommunication in name of principal by innocent agent upon information from guilty agent.', 'SLESSER ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-07', 'CONTRACT: LAND; Sale of Land'),
(850, 'London Midland and Scottish Railway Co v Greaver and Another', '', '../links/cases/London Midland and Scottish Railway Co v Greaver and Another.pdf', 'Yes', 'SWIFT AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'London Midland and Scottish Railway Co v Greaver and Another\r\nCarriers – Railway – Bye-law – Validity – Prohibition of transfer of ticket.\r\nK purchased for 10s an excursion return ticket, which was not transferable. The ordinary\r\nsingle fare for the same journey was 23s. On arrival at his destination K handed to G the\r\nreturn half of his excursion ticket which G intended to use to avoid payment of his fare.', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-27', 'TRANSPORT; Rail'),
(851, 'London Power Co Ltd v Lamb', '', '../links/cases/London Power Co Ltd v Lamb.pdf', 'Yes', 'SCOTT LJJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'London Power Co Ltd v Lamb\r\nWorkmen’s Compensation – Accident – Admission that incapacity due to accident –\r\nDeclaration of liability – Application for review – Evidence that incapacity would have been\r\nthe same even if there had been no accident.', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-19', 'EMPLOYMENT; Other Employment'),
(852, 'Lovibond v Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and Others', '', '../links/cases/Lovibond v Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and Others.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD THANKERTON, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MAUGHAM, SIR GEORGE RANKIN', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Lovibond v Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and Others\r\nCompanies – Share register – Allegation of improper removal of name – Action for damages\r\nfor wrongful removal.\r\nCrown Practice – Petition of right – Shares transferred by statutory authority to Crown –\r\nAction for rectification of register.', 'LORD ATKIN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-14', 'COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries: COMPANY; Shares: CONSTITUTIONAL; Crown'),
(853, 'Lowry (Inspector of Taxes) v Field', '', '../links/cases/Lowry.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Lowry (Inspector of Taxes) v Field\r\nIncome Tax – Profits – Capital profit – Subscription to mining venture – Allotment of shares\r\nin development company.\r\nA company amongst its other activities prospected for, acquired options over, purchased and\r\nresold to development companies mineral properties in various parts of the world.', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-22', 'COMPANY; Shares: TAXATION; Profits'),
(854, 'Lyons v Collins (HM Inspector of Taxes)', '', '../links/cases/Lyons v Collins.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Lyons v Collins (HM Inspector of Taxes)\r\nIncome Tax – Schedule A – Valuation – Valuation by person of skill – Rack rent – Income\r\nTax Act 1918 (c 40), s 138.\r\nAssessments under the Income Tax Act 1918, sched A, were made on certain leasehold\r\npremises', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-11', 'TAXATION; Assessment'),
(855, 'M Otto and E Otto v Bolton and Norris', '', '../links/cases/M Otto and E Otto v Bolton and Norris.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'M Otto and E Otto v Bolton and NorrisM Otto and E Otto v Bolton and Norris\r\nSale of land – Purchase of new house from builder – Warranty.\r\nNegligence – Negligent construction of house – Liability in tort to person injured.\r\nThe first plaintiff contracted with the defendant for the purchase of a newly-constructed\r\nhouse informing them that on account of the health and nervousness of the second defendant\r\nshe desired to be assured that the house was well built.', 'ATKINSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-08', 'LAND; Sale of Land: TORTS; Negligence'),
(856, 'Mackinnon v Peate and Another', '', '../links/cases/Mackinnon v Peate and Another.pdf', 'Yes', 'DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Mackinnon v Peate and Another\r\nStreet Traffic – Heavy motor car – Laden weight – “Registered on or after 1 January 1932” –\r\nMotor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) Provisional Regulations 1931, reg\r\n10(ii).', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-24', 'CRIMINAL; Road Traffic: TRANSPORT; Road'),
(857, 'Mahadeo v R', '', '../links/cases/Mahadeo v R.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON, SIR GEORGE LOWNDES, SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Mahadeo v R\r\nPrivy Council – Fiji – Criminal Law – Manslaughter – Conviction of murder – Exclusion of\r\nstatements – Corroboration.\r\nThe appellant, a lad of 16, in separating two boys who were fighting, caused the death of one\r\nof them. The only witness was one Sukraj, who was present at the time and was charged as\r\naccessory after the fact. At the trial a letter was read from the solicitors acting for the\r\ndefendants asking for the production of all statements made by the defendants and Sukraj.', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC,', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-11', 'COMMONWEALTH; Dependencies: CRIMINAL; Criminal Evidence'),
(858, 'Mann v Mann', '', '../links/cases/Mann v Mann.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Mann v Mann\r\nDivorce – Maintenance order – Subsequent agreement for payment of maintenance and for\r\nsettlement of accounts – Action for arrears – Judgment for plaintiff – Further action for\r\narrears – Estoppel – Absence of consideration – Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation)\r\nAct 1925 (c 49), s 190.', 'PORTER J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-11', 'FAMILY; Divorce'),
(859, 'Manners v Manners and Fortescue', '', '../links/cases/Manners v Manners and Fortescue.pdf', 'Yes', 'LANGTON J', '1936', 'High Court', 'Manners v Manners and Fortescue\r\nHusband and wife – Divorce – Petition for dissolution of marriage – Application for rehearing\r\n– Wife respondent not served – Matrimonial Causes Rules 1924, r 46 – Limits of rule\r\n– County Courts Act 1888 (c 43) ss 91 and 93 – Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1890 (c 44)\r\ns 1 – Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 (c 49) s 30.', 'SIR BOYD MERRIMAN P', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-15', 'FAMILY; Divorce'),
(860, 'Marchant v Ford and Others', '', '../links/cases/Marchant v Ford and Others.pdf', 'Yes', ' SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Supreme', 'Marchant v Ford and Others\r\nPractice – Pleading – Striking out part of claim – No cause of action – Libel – Claim against\r\nprinter of advertising wrapper of book containing alleged libel – Assisting to publish – RSC\r\nOrd 25, r 4.', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-28', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: TORTS; Defamation'),
(861, 'Marriott v Minister of Health', '', '../links/cases/Marriott v Minister of Health.pdf', 'Yes', ' ROMER LJJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Marriott v Minister of Health\r\nPublic Health – Housing – Clearance area – Compulsory purchase order – Demolition before\r\nlocal inquiry – Housing Act 1930 (c 39), sched II, part 1, para 5.\r\nThe Nottingham Corporation on 4 June 1934, resolved that a certain area should be a\r\nclearance area, and on the same day made a compulsory purchase order in respect of part\r\nthereof. Upon that part of the area there were 39 houses of which 27 were the property of the\r\napplicant.\r\n ', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-24', 'HEALTH; Public health: HOUSING: TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING'),
(862, 'Marshall v London Passenger Transport Board', '', '../links/cases/Marshall v London Passenger Transport Board.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER LJ AND MACNAGHTEN J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Marshall v London Passenger Transport Board\r\nLimitation of Actions – Amendment of particulars creating new cause of action – Running\r\ndown action against authority also highway authority – Adding neglect to repair highway to\r\nnegligent driving – Writ – Particularity of indorsement.', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-13', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE'),
(863, 'Mason & Wood Ltd v Greene & Wife', '', '../links/cases/Mason.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER LJJ AND FINLAY J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Mason & Wood Ltd v Greene & Wife\r\nMoneylending – Memorandum of contract – Rate of interest – Moneylenders Act 1927 (c 21)\r\ns 6.\r\nThe memorandum of a moneylending contract stated that there was an advance of £50 upon a\r\npromissory note for £70 and that “the amount of principal being advanced in respect of the\r\npromissory note for £70 is £50 and the interest charged on £20 is equivalent to interest at the\r\nrate of £64 per cent. per annum”:—', 'SLESSER ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-14', 'BANKING AND FINANCE'),
(864, 'Matania v The National Provincial Bank Ltd and The Elevenist Syndicate Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Matania v The National Provincial Bank Ltd and The Elevenist Syndicate Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER LJJ AND FINLAY J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Matania v The National Provincial Bank Ltd and The Elevenist Syndicate Ltd\r\nLandlord and Tenant – Covenant for quiet enjoyment – Breach – Building operations on\r\nadjoining part of premises – Conditional consent by lessor – Condition not fulfilled –\r\nNuisance – building operations – Dust and noise – Independent contractor – Danger of works\r\namounting to nuisance.', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-22', 'LANDLORD AND TENANT; Leases: TORTS; Nuisance'),
(865, 'Matthews v Hanscombe and Another  ', '', '../links/cases/Matthews v Hanscombe and Another.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Matthews v Hanscombe and Another\r\n Contract – Implication of terms – Contract to construct roads on building estate.\r\nBy the terms of a registered transfer of certain property, a right was given to the transferors\r\nand their successors in title of land adjoining the property transferred at any time within a\r\nperiod of 15 years to make a roadway therein referred to, and the transferees covenanted that\r\nas soon as the transferors should exercise their option to make the roadway and give notice\r\nthereof to the transferees, the transferees would construct a roadway (a continuation of the\r\nroadway above-mentioned) to the reasonable satisfaction of the transferors’ surveyor.', 'GODDARD J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-12', 'CONSTRUCTION: CONTRACT'),
(866, 'Maurice Kliman (HM Inspector of Taxes) v B Stone', '', '../links/cases/Maurice Kliman.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Maurice Kliman (HM Inspector of Taxes) v B Stone\r\nIncome Tax – Valuation of property – Additional assessment – Preparatory year and year of\r\nrevaluation – Income Tax Act 1918 (c 40) s 125 – Finance Act 1930 (c 28) ss 28, 31, 32\r\nSched I, Part I.', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-01', 'TAXATION; Assessment'),
(867, 'McCann v Scottish Co-Operative Laundry Association Limited', '', '../links/cases/McCann v Scottish Co.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD THANKERTON, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MACMILLAN, LORD ROCHE', '1936', 'Appeal', 'McCann v Scottish Co-Operative Laundry Association Limited\r\nWorkmen’s Compensation – Partial incapacity – Light work provided by employer at preaccident\r\nwage – Subsequent total incapacity through illness unconnected with accident –\r\nCompensation during illness – Workmen’s Compensation Act 1925 (c 84), ss 1(1), 9(1), (3).', 'LORD ATKIN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-03', 'HEALTH; Health and safety at work'),
(868, 'McGowan v Assessment Committee for Osgold Cross Assessment Area, West Riding of Yorkshire', '', '../links/cases/McGowan v Assessment Committee for Osgold Cross Assessment Area.pdf', 'Yes', 'DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'McGowan v Assessment Committee for Osgold Cross Assessment Area, West Riding of\r\nYorkshire\r\nRates – Industrial hereditament – Printing works with shop – Rating and Valuation\r\n(Apportionment) Act 1928 (c 44), s 3(1).', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-29', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(869, 'McManus v Bowes and Others', '', '../links/cases/McManus v Bowes and Others.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'McManus v Bowes and Others\r\nLunatics – County mental hospital – Officers – Dismissal – Notice – Lunacy Act 1890 (c 5),\r\ns 276 – Superannuation – Return of payments – Asylums Officers’ Superannuation Act 1909\r\n(c 48).', 'MACNAGHTEN J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-19', 'EMPLOYMENT; Wrongful dismissal: HEALTH; Mental health'),
(870, 'Menon v Menon and Warth', '', '../links/cases/Menon v Menon and Warth.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Menon v Menon and Warth\r\nDivorce – Husband’s petition claiming damages – Prior action for enticement settled on\r\npayment of damages – Assessment of damages in divorce petition.', 'SIR BOYD MERRIMAN P', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-07', 'FAMILY; Divorce'),
(871, 'Merstham Manor Limited v Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council', '', '../links/cases/Merstham Manor Limited v Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Merstham Manor Limited v Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council\r\nHighways – Dedication – Evidence – Rights of Way Act 1932 (c 45), s 1 – Costs – Public\r\nAuthorities Protection Act 1893 (c 61), s 1(b).\r\nThe public had for forty years used a roadway at Coulsdon and, though there was some\r\nevidence of people being stopped or turned away, it was clear that in the majority of cases it\r\nhad been used as a public highway without challenge.', 'HILBERY J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-22', 'ENVIRONMENTAL: LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(872, 'Rodenhurst Estates Ltd v W H Barnes Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Doc161.pdf', 'Yes', 'SIR BOYD MERRIMAN P SCOTT LJ, AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Rodenhurst Estates Ltd v W H Barnes Ltd    Landlord and Tenant – Covenant against assignment – Licence granted by Landlord – No\r\nlegal assignment – Entry upon premises – Action for rent – Estoppel.\r\nThe lease of certain property which the tenant used in connection with his business, contained\r\na covenant against assigning without the landlords’ consent. The tenant assigned his business\r\nto a limited company, agreeing to transfer to them all existing leases. A licence to assign the\r\nlease of the property was duly granted by the landlords, and the company went into\r\npossession and for a time paid the rent to the landlords. No assignment of the lease was in\r\nfact completed. In an action against the company for the recovery of rent, the company\r\ncontended that being mere equitable assignees of the lease, there was no privity of contract\r\nbetween it and the landlords and it was not liable for the payment of the rent. The county\r\ncourt judge held that inasmuch as the landlords’ consent was to the company being in\r\npossession of the premises as assignees and not otherwise, the company was on the facts\r\nestopped from denying that it was an assignee and liable for the rent. The company\r\nappealed:—', 'SIR BOYD MERRIMAN P', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-21', 'EQUITY: LANDLORD AND TENANT; Leases'),
(873, 'Aaronson and Others v Ghadieh and Others', '', '../links/cases/Doc372.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD THANKERTON, SIR JOHN WALLIS AND SIR GEORGE', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Aaronson and Others v Ghadieh and Others    Privy Council – Palestine – Land settlement – Jurisdiction of settlement officer – Right of\r\nappeal from decision of settlement officer – Palestine Land Settlement Ordinance 1928.\r\nA settlement order was issued under the Palestine Land Settlement Ordinance, s 3, that a\r\nsettlement of rights in land and registration thereof should be effected in the area included\r\nwithin the boundaries of, inter alia, the village of Hudeira in the Haifa sub-district and of the\r\nlands of Attil and Zeita in the Tulkarem sub-district. A settlement officer was duly appointed\r\nand a preliminary notice issued of the intended settlement and registration of rights in the\r\nvillage of Hudeira. A dispute arose with regard to certain land known as Khor al Wasa’, of\r\nwhich the appellants were registered in the land registry of Haifa as absolute owners. The\r\nentry in the registry described the area as being within the village of Hudeira. The settlement\r\nofficer found that the area in dispute was included within the boundaries of Zeita and/or Attil\r\nmusha’ lands, and he ordered that the entries in the Haifa land registry relating to the area in\r\ndispute be separated from the entries in respect of the lands of Hudeira, and that an\r\nobservation be made in respect of such entries that in accordance with the judgment of the\r\nsettlement officer those lands were held to be situated within the musha’ lands of Zeita and/or\r\nAttil and were recorded as such in the Tulkarem land registry, and that a corresponding entry\r\nbe recorded in the Tulkarem land registry. The appellants appealed. The competency of the\r\nappeal was challenged on the ground that the decision was not one “as to any right to land”\r\nwithin the Land Settlement Ordinance 1928, s 56(1). The Land Court upheld the competency\r\nof the appeal, and dismissed the appeal. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appeal was held\r\nnot to be competent and the appellants’ application was dismissed. The appellants appealed to\r\nthe Privy Council:—', 'LORD THANKERTON', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-27', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Courts: INTERNATIONAL; International Disputes'),
(874, 'Dodworth v Dale', '', '../links/cases/Dodworth v Dale.pdf', 'Yes', '', '193-', 'High Court', 'Dodworth v Dale     Income Tax – Personal allowance – Married man – Marriage annulled – Additional\r\nassessments – Income Tax Act 1918 (c 40), s 125(1).\r\nA taxpayer went through the form of marriage with a lady in 1921 and lived with her until\r\n1933. During those years he received in respect of the income tax payable by him the usual\r\npersonal allowance of a married man. In 1933 he obtained a decree of nullity and the revenue\r\nauthorities made additional assessments upon him in respect of the years 1928 to 1933 upon\r\nthe ground that the marriage having been declared null and void he was not entitled to such\r\nallowances:—', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '0193-05-13', 'TAXATION; Assessment'),
(875, 'Dolby v Halmshaw', '', '../links/cases/Dolby v Halmshaw.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, BRANSON AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Dolby v Halmshaw     Game – Licence – Coursing – Greyhounds chasing and killing hare – No organised meeting –\r\nGame Licences Act 1860 (c 90), s 5(3).\r\nH was riding in a field with the owner’s permission and had with him two greyhounds. No\r\nother persons were present. The greyhounds chased and killed a hare, which H collected. H\r\nhad no licence to kill game:—', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-21', 'LEISURE AND LICENSING'),
(876, 'Domine v M Cohen & Co', '', '../links/cases/Domine v M Cohen.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Domine v M Cohen & Co     County Courts – Execution – Levy – Stay – Discretion of Judge.\r\nPlaintiff obtained judgment against the defendants for the sum of £53 8s payable in\r\ninstalments of £2 monthly. One of these instalments being in arrear the plaintiff levied\r\nexecution for the whole amount then owing and seized certain property. A friend of the\r\ndefendants then paid the bailiff the whole amount outstanding and costs of the execution, and\r\nwas given a receipt stating that the sum was paid as a deposit pending an application to the\r\nCourt. It was intended that upon an application to the Court the defendant should pay the one\r\ninstalment and the costs of execution and that a new order for payment for instalments should\r\nbe made. The order made by the Court followed these terms, but went on to add that if the\r\ndefendant did not pay the costs of execution, the so-called deposit should remain in Court\r\nuntil further order.', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-05', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Courts'),
(877, 'Dora Dolan (an infant, suing by her father and next friend Charles Dolan) v Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company', '', '../links/cases/Dora Dolan.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Dora Dolan (an infant, suing by her father and next friend Charles Dolan) v Dominion\r\nof Canada General Insurance Company     ', 'ATKINSON J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-25', 'CRIMINAL; Road Traffic: INSURANCE'),
(878, 'Dorothy Margaret Catherine Hulme-King v Henry Peter Christopher de Silva', '', '../links/cases/Dorothy Margaret Catherine Hulme.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD ATKIN, LORD MAUGHAM AND SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Dorothy Margaret Catherine Hulme-King v Henry Peter Christopher de Silva     Divorce – Compromise – Withdrawal of opposition to application for decree absolute.\r\nA husband, the respondent, obtained a decree nisi for divorce from his wife, the appellant.\r\nThere being nothing in law or in practice in Ceylon to prevent an application for a decree\r\nabsolute being made by the guilty spouse, the appellant duly made an application which was\r\nopposed by the respondent. The appellant then agreed to pay to the respondent a monthly\r\nallowance in consideration, inter alia, of the withdrawal of his opposition to the appellant’s\r\napplication. The appellant defaulted in payment of the allowance, and the respondent brought\r\nan action to recover the amount due:—', 'LORD ATKIN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-27', 'FAMILY; Divorce'),
(879, 'Dott v Brown', '', '../links/cases/Dott v Brown.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD ROCHE, SCOTT LJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Dott v Brown    Income Tax – Debt – Payment by instalments – Instalments to continue during life of creditor\r\n– All Schedules Rules r 19.\r\nBy an agreement of compromise in respect of a sum of money owed, the respondent, inter\r\nalia, covenanted to pay to the appellant two sums of £1,000 each on the dates therein\r\nmentioned and £250 on each succeeding 31 March so long as the appellant should live, such\r\ncovenant to bind the respondent’s estate after his death:—', 'LORD ROCHE', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-06', 'TAXATION; Income Tax'),
(880, 'Drake v Gray', '', '../links/cases/Drake v Gray.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER, ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Drake v Gray    Sale of land – Restrictive covenants – No building scheme – Devolution of benefit of\r\ncovenants – Subsequent purchaser of part of land retained.\r\nTestator gave his residuary estate upon trust for sale and directed his trustees to divide the\r\nproceeds between his three sons, who took absolutely, and his two daughters, whose shares\r\nwere settled. Certain unsold realty was partitioned between the five children, and in the\r\npartition deed all the land was subjected to certain restrictions. There was no building\r\nscheme. The covenant imposing the restrictions was in the following form: “The trustees [to\r\nwhom the daughters’ land was conveyed] do hereby for themselves and their assigns to the\r\nintent and so that the covenants hereinafter contained shall be binding on the lands and\r\npremises hereby assured into whosoever hands the same may come but not so as to render the\r\ntrustees or any of them personally liable in damages for any breach thereof after he or she\r\nshall have parted with all interest in the respective premises hereby assured covenant with the\r\nrespective parties hereto of the first second and third parts and other the owner or owners for\r\nthe time being of the remaining hereditaments so agreed to be partitioned as aforesaid and not\r\nhereby assured that the trustees their heirs and assigns will at all times hereafter perform and\r\nobserve” etc … The plaintiff was a subsequent purchaser with notice of the covenant of a\r\nsmall part of the land then conveyed to the trustees on behalf of one of the daughters.\r\nAssuming the plaintiff was entitled to enforce against the purchaser the original covenant\r\nthere was an admitted breach of one of the restrictions:—', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-28', 'LAND; Sale of Land'),
(881, 'Dryden v Surrey County Council and Stewart', '', '../links/cases/Dryden v Surrey County Council and Stewart.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Dryden v Surrey County Council and Stewart    Evidence – Two defendants – Distinct cases – Cross-examination – Medicine – Negligence\r\nof nurses – Professional duty – Liability of hospital.\r\nThe defendant S performed a minor operation on the plaintiff in the defendant council’s\r\nhospital. After she had left the hospital the plaintiff complained of pains, and upon\r\nexamination by her doctor she was found to be suffering from pyelitis, and a wad of surgical\r\ngauze was found in and removed from her body. The plaintiff brought an action against S for\r\nbreach of duty and neglect to remove the plugging after the operation, and against the\r\ndefendant council for breach of duty and negligence arising out of a failure to nurse her\r\nproperly. The negligence alleged against the council was that the nurses in their hospital had\r\nfailed to remove the plugging, had failed to observe or report to the doctor in charge certain\r\nsymptoms in the plaintiff’s condition, and had failed to take her temperature on the morning\r\non which she had left the hospital. At the hearing counsel for S put leading questions to\r\nwitnesses for the defendant council:—', 'FINLAY J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-29', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: PROFESSIONS; Medical'),
(882, 'Duncan v Aberdeen County Council', '', '../links/cases/Duncan v Aberdeen County Council.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD BLANESBURGH, LORD ATKIN, LORD THANKERTON, LORD MACMILLAN AND LORD MAUGHAM', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Duncan v Aberdeen County Council    Poor Law – Relief – Disability pension – Whether first one pound of pension should be\r\ndisregarded in considering application for relief – Poor Law (Scotland) Act 1934 (c 52),\r\ns 11(1)(d).\r\nBy the Poor Law (Scotland) Act 1934, s 11(1) (which is similar to the Poor Law Act 1934,\r\ns 1(b)(4)) it is provided that “In affording outdoor relief to any person a local authority shall\r\ndisregard … (d) the first one pound of any wounds or disability pension of which he, or any\r\nother person whose resources the authority take into account in relieving him, is in receipt.”', 'LORD BLANESBURGH', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-02', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT: SOCIAL SECURITY'),
(883, 'Dunlop Rubber Company Ltd v W B Haigh & Son', '', '../links/cases/Dunlop Rubber Company Ltd v W B Haigh.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Dunlop Rubber Company Ltd v W B Haigh & Son     Bankruptcy – Assignment for benefit of creditors – Assent by creditors – Limited company –\r\nDebts due to two branches – Assent by one branch – Dissent by other branch.\r\nThe plaintiffs, a limited company, had a branch in L and another in B, both of which branches\r\nhad dealings with the defendants. The defendants executed a deed of assignment in favour of\r\ntheir creditors. At the time of the execution of this deed certain sums were due from the\r\ndefendants to both the L branch and the B branch of the plaintiff company, and the trustee\r\nunder the deed duly informed both branches of the execution of the deed and sent them a\r\nform of assent to the deed for signature. The L branch duly assented to the deed and stated\r\nthe amount of their claim. The B branch declined to assent to the deed and commenced\r\nproceedings against the defendants for the amount of their claim. The defendants admitted the\r\ndebt, but contended that the plaintiffs had assented to the deed of arrangement and were\r\nbound by its terms, including a release of all claims against the defendants. The\r\nrepresentative of the plaintiffs in L had full authority to deal with the debt owed to the L\r\nbranch, but no express authority to deal with the affairs of the B branch, both branches being\r\nrun independently and neither having any knowledge of the state of the accounts of the\r\nother:—', 'MACNAGHTEN J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '0000-00-00', 'BANKRUPTCY'),
(884, 'Earl of Cadogan v Guinness and others', '', '../links/cases/Earl of Cadogan v Guinness and others.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Earl of Cadogan v Guinness and others    Real Property – Restrictive covenants – Discharge or modification – Leaseholds – “Term of\r\nmore than seventy years, after the expiration of fifty years of the term” – Law of Property Act\r\n1925 (c 20), s 84(12).\r\nBy a lease executed on 31 January 1888, a term of ninety-nine years was created\r\ncommencing on 25 March 1874, subject to certain restrictive covenants. On 14 October 1935,\r\nan application was made under the Law of Property Act 1925, s 84(12) for the discharge or\r\nmodification of one of the restrictive covenants:—', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-24', 'LANDLORD AND TENANT; Leases'),
(885, 'Earl of St Germans and Another v Barker and Another', '', '../links/cases/Earl of St Germans and Another v Barker and Another.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Earl of St Germans and Another v Barker and Another    Mortgage – Leaseholds mortgaged by subdemise – No trust of nominal reversion – Equity of\r\nredemption statute-barred before 1926 – Transitional provisions – Privity of estate between\r\nlessor and mortgagee – Law of Property Act 1925 (c 20) s 89(3) Sched I Part II para 3.\r\nPrior to 1926 the equity of redemption of leaseholds, which had been mortgaged by\r\nsubdemise without any trust of the nominal reversion, became statute-barred. The mortgagees\r\ndid not after 1925 execute a declaration that the head term had become vested in them under\r\nLaw of Property Act 1925 s 89(3). Upon the expiration of the lease, the reversioners sought\r\nto make the mortgagees liable upon the repair covenant in the lease, on the ground that the\r\nwhole term had automatically vested in them under the transitional provisions of the Law of\r\nProperty Act 1925:—', 'CROSSMAN J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-20', 'LAND; Mortgages'),
(886, 'Eaton-Turner v McKenna (HM Inspector of Taxes)', '', '../links/cases/Eaton.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD ATKIN, LORD THANKERTON, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MACMILLAN, LORD ROCHE', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Eaton-Turner v McKenna (HM Inspector of Taxes)     Income Tax – Resident in the United Kingdom – Earnings arising wholly from employment\r\nabroad – Whether earnings chargeable to income tax – Income Tax Act 1918 (c 40), s 1,\r\nsched D, case II, sched E, r 6 – Finance Act 1922 (c 17), s 18.\r\nThe appellant, who at all relevant times was a person residing in the United Kingdom for the\r\npurposes of the Income Tax Acts, was employed by an English company at the company’s\r\nmines in West Africa, and the whole of his duties were performed outside the United\r\nKingdom. The greater part of his remuneration was paid in London, and the remainder was\r\npaid abroad. The appellant, having been assessed to income tax under sched E of the Income\r\nTax Act 1918, as amended by the Finance Act 1922, s 18, in respect of the remuneration\r\narising from his employment, contended that under the Acts there was no liability for income\r\ntax upon the profits of an employment carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom, and\r\nthat his employment was not an employment of profit in the United Kingdom for any of the\r\nyears of assessment within the meaning of sched E, r 6, which provides that “the tax shall be\r\npaid in respect of all the public offices and employments of profit within the United\r\nKingdom. … ”', 'LORD ATKIN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-15', 'TAXATION; Income Tax'),
(887, 'Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron and Coal Co Limited v Williams', '', '../links/cases/Ebbw Vale Steel.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER, GREENE AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron and Coal Co Limited v Williams     Master and servant – Workmen’s compensation – Partial incapacity treated as total –\r\nContract of employment terminated – Probability of obtaining same class of work as before –\r\nWorkmen’s Compensation Act 1925 (c 84), s 9(4) – Workmen’s Compensation Act 1931\r\n(c 18), s 1.\r\nA disabled miner was in receipt of compensation for total incapacity. The employers gave\r\nnotice terminating his contract of service, and afterwards brought proceedings to review and\r\ndiminish the weekly payment. The manager of the colliery said in evidence that if the miner\r\nhad not had nystagmus he would probably have been working for the employers; that he\r\nmade a practice of re-engaging old workmen if he needed them; and that he was instructed to\r\ngive the workman notice in consequence of the House of Lords’ decision in Barstow v\r\nIngham’s Thornhill Collieries Ltd [1934] AC 304; Digest Supp. The county court judge,\r\nnevertheless, was not satisfied that the workman would have been employed, or that he was\r\nunfit to do the work by reason of nystagmus, or that his failure to obtain employment was\r\nconsequent either wholly or mainly on his injury. He therefore reduced the amount of the\r\ncompensation:—', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-03', 'EMPLOYMENT; Contract of service: HEALTH; Health and safety at work'),
(888, 'Egginton v Reader', '', '../links/cases/Egginton v Reader.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Egginton v Reader    Negligence –Personal injuries – Servant or independent contractor.\r\nThe driver of a motor-car negligently knocked down and injured a pedestrian. The driver was\r\nthe owner of the car, but he used it to carry samples of the goods of B & A G Ltd, which he\r\nreceived each morning and returned or accounted for each evening. In order to sell such\r\ngoods he visited such places and persons as he thought fit without being subject to any\r\ndirection by B & A G Ltd, and he was not prohibited from acting as agent or servant of any\r\nother person or company, and, indeed, was at liberty to refuse to call on any person B & A G\r\nLtd might suggest. He was remunerated by a commission on sales and was paid £1 per week\r\ntowards the cost of his petrol. It was not, however, a term of the agreement between the\r\ndriver and B & A G Ltd, that he should use the said or any car. There was no binding\r\nagreement upon the driver to work at all, but upon his failure to procure orders, B & A G Ltd\r\nwould have terminated the payment for petrol.', 'LEWIS J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-27', 'EMPLOYMENT: TORTS; Negligence'),
(889, 'Electric and Musical Industries Ltd and Boonton Research Corporation v Lissen Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Electric and Musical Industries Ltd and Boonton Research Corporation v Lissen Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Electric and Musical Industries Ltd and Boonton Research Corporation v Lissen Ltd     Patent – Infringement – Order for delivery up – Infringement by particular user only.\r\nThe plaintiffs had been successful in an action against the defendants for infringement of\r\ntheir letters patent, and the registrar had made an order (inter alia) for delivery up as prayed in\r\nthe statement of claim—the judgment being silent as to the form of order to be made. The\r\ndefendants applied to the court to have the registrar’s order varied so as to exclude delivery\r\nup, on the ground that the infringement proved was by user only:—', 'LUXMOORE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-15', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Copyright'),
(890, 'Elkington and Company Limited v Amery', '', '../links/cases/Elkington and Company Limited v Amery.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER, SLESSER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Elkington and Company Limited v Amery     Infant – Contract – Necessaries.\r\nThe appellant in August 1931, purchased from the respondent company certain jewellery and\r\npaid cash. In January 1932, he purchased a lady’s vanity bag for £20 10s on credit. In June\r\nand August 1932, he purchased also on credit two rings for £42 and £38 respectively. On the\r\npurchase of the first ring he brought a young lady with him and stated that he wanted an\r\nengagement ring. The second ring was treated as the wedding ring. All these transactions\r\ntook place while the appellant was under age. After he had attained his majority, proceedings\r\nwere commenced against him, but were compromised upon his agreeing to pay the debt by\r\ninstalments. After payment of one instalment, he made default and the present proceedings\r\nwere brought against him for the balance outstanding. The appellant was the son of a former\r\ncabinet minister:—', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-21', 'CONTRACT: FAMILY; Children'),
(891, 'Ellison v Calvert & Heald', '', '../links/cases/Ellison v Calvert.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD ATKIN, LORD THANKERTON, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MACMILLAN, LORD ROCHE', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Ellison v Calvert & Heald    Workmen’s Compensation – Accident – No evidence of cause of injury – Reasonable\r\ninference – Delay in notice of accident – Reasonable cause – Workmen’s Compensation Act\r\n1925 (c 84), ss 1(1), 14.\r\nAn electrician was employed in the foundations of a building in a cutting, the roof of which\r\nwas so low that he had often to lie on his back with his head resting on the floor. Men who\r\nworked there had to discard their caps because of the heat due to central heating pipes. The\r\nplace was dark, dusty, and dirty. When he returned home on 23 November 1934, the\r\nelectrician showed his wife (the appellant) a sore place on the back of his head, which neither\r\nregarded as serious, and he continued to work as usual. On 26 November he felt so ill that his\r\nwife tried to dissuade him from going to work. He went to work but came home early and\r\ncomplained of pains in the chest and in the head, and in the evening his condition was\r\nserious. On the following day he remained in bed, and his doctor found that he had bronchitis\r\nin both lungs but did not connect it with the septic wound on his head. He was admitted to\r\nhospital on 7 December suffering from septic meningitis and septic pneumonia, and on 10\r\nDecember he died from septic meningitis. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem\r\nexamination attributed the septic condition to the small wound on the back of the head as the\r\nplace of entry of the poison. On 7 December the appellant notified the employers (the\r\nrespondents) verbally that the illness was due to the workman having hurt his head in the\r\ncutting, but there was no evidence adduced as to such cause of the illness. Written notice was\r\ngiven to the employers on 22 January 1935. An award of compensation was made to the\r\nappellant on the ground that the balance of probability was that the small would on the head\r\nwas caused at work, and that the want of notice of the accident was occasioned by mistake or\r\nother reasonable cause:—', 'LORD ATKIN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-30', 'EMPLOYMENT; Other Employment'),
(892, 'English v Bloom and London Passenger Transport Board', '', '../links/cases/English v Bloom and London Passenger Transport Board.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'English v Bloom and London Passenger Transport Board    Practice – Separate writs – Consolidation – Payments into court admitting liability by each of\r\ntwo defendants – One plaintiff recovering more and one less than amount paid in – Form of\r\norder.\r\nA taxicab, driven by the first defendant was caught between two tramcars belonging to the\r\nsecond defendants. The two passengers in the cab sued both defendants. One firm of\r\nsolicitors acted for both plaintiffs, and they issued two writs and separate statements of claim.\r\nSeparate defences having been delivered, the actions were by order consolidated, and later\r\nthe defendants paid into court with admission of liability £225 in respect of the first\r\nplaintiff’s claim, and £125 in respect of the second plaintiff’s claim. Judgment was given for\r\n£200 in the case of the first plaintiff and for £185 in that of the second:—', 'SINGLETON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-22', 'Siegenberg v Bloom and London Passenger Transport Board'),
(893, 'Espir and Others v Basil Street Hotel Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Espir and Others v Basil Street Hotel Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Espir and Others v Basil Street Hotel Ltd     Landlord and Tenant – Lease – Covenant against alterations – Breach – Measure of damages\r\n– Injury to reversion.\r\nE was the tenant of part of certain premises under a lease for a term of 98 years, and he sublet\r\nthat part to B for the unexpired residue of that term less the last 15 days. E’s superior landlord\r\nthen let to B, for a term of 999 years, the whole of the premises, subject to E’s interest in the\r\npart. B, in breach of a covenant in his sub-lease, made considerable structural alterations to\r\nthe whole of the premises, which B used for the purpose of running an hotel. E brought an\r\naction against B for breach of the conditions in the sub-lease. The county court judge\r\nawarded E £60 damages, which he assessed on the basis of the restoration work which would\r\nhave to be done to that part of the premises in which E had an interest, before E could let that\r\npart to some other person. B appealed:—', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-13', 'LANDLORD AND TENANT; Leases');
INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(894, 'Evans v Hassan and Another', '', '../links/cases/Evans v Hassan and Another.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ Hearing Date(', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Evans v Hassan and Another      Street traffic – Express carriages – Road service licence – Special occasion – Road Traffic\r\nAct 1930 (c 43) s 72 – Road Traffic Act 1934 (c 50) s 25.\r\nA motor-coach owner, H, by arrangement with a theatre manager, M, caused a party to be\r\ntaken from Hounslow to Epsom Races and back. H had no road service licence to run motor\r\ncoaches from Hounslow to Epsom, and the coach drivers carried no work tickets.\r\nInformations were laid against H for using and against M for causing to be used motor\r\nvehicles as express carriages otherwise than under road service licences, contrary to the Road\r\nTraffic Act 1930, s 72. The justices found that H had been induced by M to believe that the\r\nparty was a private one, and, therefore, there being no mens rea, that he had committed no\r\noffence under s 72. The justices consequently found that M had not caused an offence to be\r\ncommitted, and dismissed both informations. The informant appealed:—', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-28', 'CRIMINAL; Road Traffic: TRANSPORT; Road'),
(895, 'Evans v Triplex Safety Glass Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Evans v Triplex Safety Glass Co Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Evans v Triplex Safety Glass Co Ltd     Negligence – Dangerous goods – Liability of manufacturer.\r\nThe plaintiff bought a motor car fitted with a “Triplex Toughened Safety Glass” windscreen\r\nof the defendants’ manufacture. When the car was being used, about a year after the date of\r\npurchase, the windscreen suddenly and for no apparent reason broke into many fragments and\r\ninjured the occupants of the car:—', 'PORTER J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-14', 'CONSUMER; Consumer Protection: TORTS; Negligence'),
(896, 'Eyre v Brumfield', '', '../links/cases/Eyre v Brumfield.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Eyre v Brumfield     Gaming – Jurisdiction of justices to order destruction of gaming machines – Gaming Act\r\n1845 (c 109), s 8.\r\nThe appellant was convicted before petty sessions of unlawfully gaming with automatic\r\nmachines, and a number of machines in his possession were ordered by the justices to be\r\ndestroyed:—', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-21', 'LEISURE AND LICENSING'),
(897, 'F W Woolworth & Co Ltd v Lambert', '', '../links/cases/F W Woolwort1.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'F W Woolworth & Co Ltd v Lambert    Landlord and Tenant – Improvements – “Without licence or consent” – Unreasonable\r\nwithholding – Demand of sum of money considered excessive by lessees – Counter-offer of\r\nlesser sum as compensation – Power of court to order reference to official or special referee –\r\nImprovements from tenants’ point of view – Demised premises as part of composite premises\r\n– Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (c 36), s 19(2), (3).\r\nIn a lease in which the respondents were the lessors and the appellants were the lessees, the\r\nappellants covenanted, inter alia, that they would not make any structural alterations on the\r\ndemised premises without the previous consent in writing of the landlords, and would not\r\ncommit, or permit to be committed, waste, and that they would use and occupy the demised\r\npremises as a first-class shop. The appellants acquired a lease of a piece of land behind the\r\ndemised premises, and desiring to erect one large shop over the whole property, they\r\nproposed pulling down the back wall of the shop on the demised premises, moving the main\r\nstaircase, lavatories and ventilating apparatus, and making other structural alterations. The\r\nrespondents would only grant their consent upon payment by the appellants of the sum of\r\n£7,000. The appellants regarded this sum as unreasonable and offered instead: (a) a covenant\r\nto reinstate the premises at the expiration of the lease; (b) an insurance with an insurance\r\ncompany to be approved by the respondents to secure the fulfilment of such covenant; and (c)\r\npayment of a sum equalling any diminution in value of the demised premises, “whatever sum\r\na court thinks reasonable and proper to be paid.” Upon the respondents refusing to agree to\r\nthese terms, the appellants sought a declaration under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927,\r\ns 19(2), that the respondents were unreasonably withholding their consent and that the\r\nappellants were entitled to make the proposed alterations without further request for consent\r\nor licence subject to: (a) an undertaking to reinstate the demised premises at the expiration or\r\nsooner determination of the term in the condition in which the premises now are; (b) securing\r\nthe performance of this undertaking by a policy of insurance; and (c) paying to the\r\nrespondents such sum (if any) as the court shall deem to be reasonable:—', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-29', 'LANDLORD AND TENANT; Leases'),
(898, 'F W Woolworth & Co Ltd v Lambert', '', '../links/cases/F W Woolworth.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'F W Woolworth & Co Ltd v Lambert    Landlord and tenant – Improvements – “without licence or consent” – unreasonable\r\nwithholding – Offer of reasonable sum as compensation – Landlord and Tenant Act 1927\r\n(c 36), s 19(2).\r\nIn a lease in which the defendants were the lessors and plaintiffs the lessees, the plaintiffs\r\ncovenanted, inter alia, that they would not make any structural alterations on the premises\r\ndemised without the previous consent in writing of the landlords, and that they would use,\r\noccupy and preserve the premises as a first-class shop. The plaintiffs acquired a lease of a\r\npiece of land behind the demised premises and, desiring to erect one large shop over the\r\nwhole property, they proposed pulling down the back wall of the shop on the demised\r\npremises, moving the main staircase and making other material alterations. The defendants\r\nrefused their consent to the proposed alterations: (a) undertaking to reinstate the demised\r\npremises at the expiration or sooner determination of the term in the condition in which they\r\nnow are; (b) securing the performance of this undertaking by a policy of insurance; and (c)\r\npaying to the defendants such sum (if any) as the court should deem to be reasonable:—', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-02', 'LANDLORDS AND TENANTS; Leases'),
(899, 'Felston Tile Company Ltd v Winget Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Felston Tile Company Ltd v Winget Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER, SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Felston Tile Company Ltd v Winget Ltd     Hire-purchase – Agreement on printed form – Conditions on printed form varied by previous\r\ncorrespondence – Hire-purchase as agreement for sale – Contract of Sale – Conditions and\r\nwarranties implied – Sale of Goods Act 1893 (c 71), ss 1, 14.\r\nThe plaintiffs negotiated by letter with the defendants for the purchase of a certain machine.\r\nA letter from the defendants, which contained an estimate, stated that the estimate was\r\nsubject to conditions printed thereon. One of the conditions provided that: “In lieu of any\r\nwarranty or condition implied by law, we guarantee that the materials … are of the best\r\nquality,” and that the defendants would replace any part broken or unduly worn within 12\r\nmonths. After further negotiations the defendants sent to the plaintiff a hire-purchase\r\nagreement expressed in a covering letter to be drawn up in accordance with the terms stated\r\nin the letter above mentioned. The hire-purchase agreement provided that: “This agreement\r\nembodies the entire agreement as to the hiring of the machinery.” There was in the agreement\r\nno exclusion of any warranty or condition. The hire-purchase agreement was duly entered\r\ninto. The machine proved unsatisfactory and the plaintiffs brought an action for breach of\r\nwarranty. The judge held that the correspondence formed no part of the contract between the\r\nparties and he gave judgment for the plaintiffs:—', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-28', 'SALE OF GOODS'),
(900, 'Fenton’s Trustee v Inland Revenue Commissioners', '', '../links/cases/Fenton’s Trustee v Inland Revenue Commissioners.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Fenton’s Trustee v Inland Revenue Commissioners    Income Tax – Bank interest – Loan account – Interest added to loan each half-year – Paid\r\n“out of profits or gains brought into charge” – Income tax Act 1918, s 36, All Schedules\r\nRules, rr 19, 21.\r\nF borrowed a large sum from a bank, in respect of which the bank opened a separate loan\r\naccount. Each half year interest at an agreed rate and without deduction of tax was placed to\r\nthe debit of the account and the aggregate amount was then treated as principal for the\r\nfollowing half-year:—', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-24', 'TAXATION; Income Tax'),
(901, 'Finney v The Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the County Borough of Birkenhead', '', '../links/cases/Finney v The Mayor.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, DU PARCQ AND SINGLETON JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Finney v The Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the County Borough of Birkenhead    Highways – Repairable by inhabitants at large – Adoption of Street – Exception of footway –\r\nNotice to repair footway – Make, curb, flag and complete – Asphalt substituted for flags –\r\nRecovery of cost.\r\nThe predecessors of the respondent corporation by notice adopted H Road under the Public\r\nHealth Act 1875 s 152. In accordance with the provisions of the Public Health Act 1925, the\r\nrespondents prepared a list of roads repairable by the inhabitants at large. H Road was therein\r\nstated to be repairable by the local authority as to the carriageway, but not as to the footway.\r\nThere was some evidence that the road had never been made up. The respondents were\r\nempowered by', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-26', 'ENVIRONMENTAL: LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(902, 'Furness Withy & Co Ltd v Duder', '', '../links/cases/Furness Withy.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Furness Withy & Co Ltd v Duder     Insurance – Marine – Collision clause – Liability of insurer – Collision with Admiralty tug –\r\nLiability of insured under contract.\r\nBy a policy of marine insurance it was provided inter alia that “if the ship hereby insured\r\nshall come into collision with any other ship or vessel and the assured … shall in\r\nconsequence thereof become liable to pay and shall pay by way of damages” any sum, the\r\nunderwriter would indemnify the assured. The assured engaged an Admiralty tug to tow the\r\ninsured ship, agreeing to make good to the Admiralty all damage suffered through injury to\r\nAdmiralty property arising out of the service of the tug. The insured ship collided with the\r\ntug owing to the negligent navigation of the tug and the assured duly paid the amount of the\r\ndamage to the Admiralty. The assured then claimed repayment from an underwriter:—', 'BRANSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-28', 'INSURANCE: SHIPPING'),
(903, 'G J Dawson (Clapham) Ltd v H & G Dutfield', '', '../links/cases/G J Dawson.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'G J Dawson (Clapham) Ltd v H & G Dutfield    Sale of Goods – Sale for cash and part exchange – Failure to exchange – Remedy seller.\r\nThe plaintiffs sold two second-hand motor lorries to the defendants for £475, as to £250 of\r\nwhich they were to be paid in cash, and as to £225 of which they were to receive in partexchange\r\ntwo other lorries, provided that the latter were delivered within a month. The cash\r\nwas paid, but the purchaser failed to deliver the lorries:—', 'HILBERY J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-12', 'SALE OF GOODS'),
(904, 'G W Fisher Limited v Eastwoods Limited', '', '../links/cases/G W Fisher Limited v Eastwoods Limited.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'G W Fisher Limited v Eastwoods Limited    Contract – Non-performance within a reasonable time – Act inconsistent with continuance of\r\ncontract.\r\nIn 1929 defendants contracted to deliver to the plaintiff 25,000 tons of cement to be delivered\r\nas and when required at 28s per ton. The plaintiff at the time anticipated the completion of a\r\ncontract which would enable him to dispose of this cement, but the contract never\r\nmaterialised. The contract was then allowed to sleep till 1931 when, after correspondence, the\r\ncontract was revived or a new contract entered into upon the old terms as to about 24,000\r\ntons of cement. Some deliveries were made, but in 1933 there was such a slump in the trade\r\nthat it was not profitable for the plaintiff to take the cement at 28s. He did by arrangement\r\ntake several deliveries at a lower figure. In 1935 plaintiff, upon prices improving, again\r\nattempted to revive the contract. The defendants at no time gave the plaintiff notice to take\r\ndelivery or determine the contract:—', 'BRANSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-04', 'CONTRACT'),
(905, 'Gaumont-British Picture Corporation Ltd v Alexander', '', '../links/cases/Gaumont.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Gaumont-British Picture Corporation Ltd v Alexander    Master and Servant – Contract of service – “Want of mutuality” – Stipulations in favour of\r\none party – Restrictions during service – Public policy – Suspension of salary – Penalty.\r\nThe court does not inquire into the adequacy of the consideration for a contract and where a\r\nparty leaves the determination of all matters under a contract in the discretion of the other\r\nparty that does not in all circumstances constitute a total want of consideration.', 'PORTER J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-23', 'EMPLOYMENT; Contract of service'),
(906, 'George Legge & Son Ltd v Wenlock Corporation', '', '../links/cases/George Legg1.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER, ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'George Legge & Son Ltd v Wenlock Corporation     Sewers and Drains – Natural watercourse – Discharge of sewage – Illegal discharge –\r\nConversion of watercourse into sewer – Public Health Act 1875 (c 55), s 4 – Rivers Pollution\r\nPrevention Act 1876 (c 75), s 3.\r\nA channel, for the greater part of its length in a covered culvert, ran through the plaintiffs’\r\nland. Originally the channel was a natural stream or watercourse, but at various times since\r\n1876 sewage had been discharged into it. It was admitted that for at least 23 years before the\r\npleadings in this action (ie, from 1909) some 20 houses had been drained into the channel and\r\nit was contended that such houses had acquired prescriptive rights of so discharging sewage\r\ninto it. A further 44 houses had commenced discharging sewage into the channel at times\r\nsubsequent to 1925. It was contended that the discharge of sewage into what was admittedly a\r\nnatural stream at the time of the passing of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act 1876, being\r\nan offence under that Act, could not convert the stream or channel into a sewer within the\r\nmeaning of the Public Health Act 1875:—', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-11-11', 'ENVIRONMENTAL'),
(907, 'George Legge & Son Ltd v Wenlock Corporation', '', '../links/cases/George Legge.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'George Legge & Son Ltd v Wenlock Corporation    ', 'CROSSMAN J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-31', 'ENVIRONMENTAL: HEALTH; Public health'),
(908, 'George Trollope & Sons v Caplan', '', '../links/cases/George Trollope.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER AND GREENE LJJ, AND TALBOT J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'George Trollope & Sons v Caplan    Agency – Commission – Estate agents – Introduction of willing purchaser – Withdrawal by\r\nvendor without reasonable cause – Damages in lieu of commission – Matters to be considered\r\nin assessing damages.\r\nEstate agents were instructed to find a purchaser for certain property part of which consisted\r\nof a shop let for £180 per annum. Willing purchasers were introduced and the price was\r\nagreed. The vendor then informed the agents that he had arranged with the tenant that the rent\r\nof the shop should temporarily be £145 per annum and that he was unwilling to go back on\r\nthis arrangement, and he withdrew the authority which he had given to the agents to sell the\r\nproperty as a property earning as to part £180 per annum. The intending purchasers refused in\r\nthe circumstances to proceed at the price agreed, the vendor declined to take less and\r\nnegotiations were discontinued. In an action by the agents, inter alia, for damages for breach\r\nof contract the county court judge held that: (a) the negotiations came to an end because of\r\n“the discovery by the intending purchaser that the [vendor] had verbally agreed that his tenant\r\nunder the sub-lease should pay £145 per annum instead of £180 and his refusal to go back\r\nupon his verbal agreement”; (b) the vendor was unable or unwilling to carry out the\r\nprovisional contract; (c) the agents were thereby prevented from earning their commission,\r\nand he awarded as damages the full amount of the commission to which the agents would\r\nhave been entitled, had the purchase been completed at the price agreed upon. The vendor\r\nappealed:—', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-28', 'CONTRACT'),
(909, 'Gerard v Worth of Paris Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Gerard v Worth of Paris Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND ROMER LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Gerard v Worth of Paris Ltd    Companies – Members’ voluntary winding up – Judgment against liquidator for wrongful\r\ndismissal of employee – Garnishee order on liquidators bank account – Companies Act 1929\r\n(c 23), ss 172, 174, 246–255.\r\nA company went into liquidation under a resolution for a member’s voluntary winding up.\r\nThe liquidator summarily discharged its manageress, who sued the company for wrongful\r\ndismissal and obtained judgment in default of defence. She applied for a garnishee order on a\r\nbank account in the name of the liquidator. There was no evidence of any other claims on the\r\ncompany. The master refused to make the order absolute, but the judge in chambers reversed\r\nhis decision. The liquidator appealed:—', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-29', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: COMPANY; Insolvency'),
(910, 'Gibbs v Barking Corporation', '', '../links/cases/Gibbs v Barking Corporation.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ, AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Gibbs v Barking Corporation    Negligence – Schoolmaster – Physical training – Liability of Education Authority\r\nIn the course of gymnastic training a schoolboy was required to vault over a horse. For some\r\nreason the boy landed “in a stumble” and was injured. The master in charge did nothing to\r\nassist the boy in landing:—', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-31', 'EDUCATION: TORTS; Negligence'),
(911, 'Glamorgan County Council v Ayton', '', '../links/cases/Glamorgan County Council v Ayton.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, BRANSON AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Glamorgan County Council v Ayton     Local Government – Expenses – Members of council – “Expenses necessarily incurred in\r\ntravelling” – Local Government Act 1933 (c 51), s 294(1).\r\nThe expenses permitted to be defrayed by a county council under the Local Government Act\r\n1933, s 294(1), which provides that “a county council may defray any expenses necessarily\r\nincurred by members of the council in travelling to and from meetings of the council,” are\r\nlimited to expenses of actual conveyance or transport and do not include expenses incurred\r\nby members for the purpose of bodily subsistence required by them by reason of absence\r\nfrom home on account of travelling to and attending meetings and returning therefrom.', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-20', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(912, 'Gordon, Mackay & Co Ltd v Watson', '', '../links/cases/Gordon.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Gordon, Mackay & Co Ltd v Watson    Gaming – Lotteries – Nature of – Betting scheme.\r\nA limited company employed agents to distribute tickets bearing the names of races, horses\r\nand jockeys, and also the name of the company, and an offer to exchange the tickets for\r\ngoods on demand. A member of the public receiving a ticket was entitled to bet on the\r\ncombinations named on the ticket, in which case if he won he received the amount of his bet;\r\nif he lost he was entitled to exchange the ticket for goods worth sixpence, through the firm’s\r\nagents. By conditions on the ticket he paid no money to the agents, but undertook to pay 6d if\r\nhe lost. The company and its directors were convicted at petty sessions under the Betting and\r\nLotteries Act 1934, and appealed:—', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-21', 'LEISURE AND LICENSING'),
(913, 'Grahame v Attorney-General of Fiji', '', '../links/cases/Grahame v Attorney.pdf', 'Yes', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON, SIR GEORGE LOWNDES, SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Grahame v Attorney-General of Fiji     Solicitors – Professional misconduct – Solicitor trustee – Breach of trust – Preference to own\r\ninterest at expense of beneficiary – Nondisclosure of interest – Duty to illiterate persons.\r\nThe appellant was suspended from practice as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court\r\nof Fiji for professional misconduct. The case against the appellant was twofold.', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-28', 'COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries: PROFESSIONS'),
(914, 'Greaves v Drysdale', '', '../links/cases/Greaves v Drysdale.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER AND GREENE LJJ, AND TALBOT J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Greaves v Drysdale     Practice – Costs – Appeal – Shorthand transcript of evidence at trial – When allowed – RSC\r\nOrd 58, rr 4 and 11.\r\nThe rule that the cost of a shorthand transcript of the evidence given at the trial should not be\r\nallowed on appeal unless there has been an agreement in the court below that it should be\r\ntaken and used as the judge’s note is not a hard and fast rule but only a ground for asking the\r\ncourt to exercise its discretion in the matter. Where the shorthand transcript has been used\r\nwithout objection and the appeal could not be properly presented without it, such costs ought\r\nto be allowed to a successful party.', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-27', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE'),
(915, 'Metropolitan Coal Co Ltd v Pye', '', '../links/cases/Metropolitan Coal Co Ltd v Pye.pdf', 'Yes', ' LORD THANKERTON, LORD MAUGHAM, SIR GEORGE LOWNDES, SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Metropolitan Coal Co Ltd v Pye\r\nMaster and servant – Workmen’s compensation – Disease arising out of and in course of\r\nemployment – Onus of proof – Disease due to silica dust – Workers’ Compensation Act\r\n1926–1929, ss 5–7 (New South Wales).', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-27', 'HEALTH; Health and safety at work'),
(916, 'Mezger v Mezger', '', '../links/cases/Mezger v Mezger.pdf', 'Yes', 'LANGTON J', '1936', 'High Court', 'Mezger v Mezger\r\nDivorce – Maintenance order – Application to revoke – Foreign nationals – Dissolution of\r\nmarriage by foreign court – Grounds not recognised in England – Discretion of justices.', 'SIR BOYD MERRIMAN P', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-15', 'FAMILY; Ancillary Finance and Property'),
(917, 'Minnevitch v Café de Paris (Londres) Limited', '', '../links/cases/Minnevitch v Café de Paris.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Minnevitch v Café de Paris (Londres) Limited\r\nContract – Implied condition – Continuance of state of things – Public mourning – Band\r\nperformances.', 'MACNAGHTEN J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-06', 'CONTRACT'),
(918, 'Moor Line Limited v Manganexport GmbH', '', '../links/cases/Moor Line Limited v Manganexport GmbH.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Moor Line Limited v Manganexport GmbH\r\nShipping – Charterparty – Loading – Commencement of laydays.\r\nA charterparty provided that the ship should proceed to her loading port and there load in\r\ncustomary manner in regular turn with other steamers loading ore for the charterers. The time\r\nfor loading was to count from 6 am after the ship was reported and ready, and in free pratique\r\n(whether in berth or not) in accordance with the above provision. Laydays were not to\r\ncommence before 10 June 1934, unless loading commenced sooner.', 'BRANSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-19', 'SHIPPING'),
(919, 'Morgan v Cullen and another', '', '../links/cases/Morgan v Cullen and another.pdf', 'Yes', 'SCOTT LJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'High Court', 'Morgan v Cullen and another\r\nCounty Courts – Practice – Reference of whole action by judge to registrar for inquiry and\r\nreport – Parties not consenting – County Courts Act 1919 (c 73), s 6 – County Courts\r\n(Amendment) Act 1934 (c 17), s 20.', 'SIR BOYD MERRIMAN P', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-06', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Courts: CIVIL PROCEDURE'),
(920, 'Morgan v Incorporated Central Council of the Girls’ Friendly Society', '', '../links/cases/Morgan v Incorporated Central Council of the Girls.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Morgan v Incorporated Central Council of the Girls’ Friendly Society\r\nNegligence – Independent contractor – Lift gate left open.\r\nPlaintiff was on his way to visit the tenants of offices in a building owned by the defendants.\r\nThe door leading to the left was partially open, and the plaintiff thinking that the lift was\r\nthere, stepped through the door, fell down the shaft and was injured.', 'HORRIDGE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-20', 'LANDLORD AND TENANT; Other Landlord and Tenant: TORTS;'),
(921, 'Morley v Moore', '', '../links/cases/Morley v Moore.pdf', 'Yes', ' P SCOTT LJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'High Court', 'Morley v Moore\r\nInsurance – Motor car – Collision – “Knock-for-knock” agreement – Right of assured to\r\nrecover from other car owner.\r\nA motorist, A, negligently damaged the car of another motorist, B, in a collision. A and B\r\nwere insured with companies who had a “knock-for-knock” agreement.\r\n', 'SIR BOYD MERRIMAN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-28', 'INSURANCE'),
(922, 'Mullard Radio Valve Company Ltd v Philco Radio and Television Corporation of Great Britain Ltd and Others', '', '../links/cases/Mullard Radio Valve Company Ltd v Philco Radio and Television Corporation of Great Britain Ltd and Others.pdf', 'Yes', ' LORD MACMILLAN, LORD ALNESS AND LORD ROCHE', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Mullard Radio Valve Company Ltd v Philco Radio and Television Corporation of\r\nGreat Britain Ltd and Others\r\nPatent – Validity – Novelty – Patentable subject-matter – Prior publication – Prior grant –\r\nPatents and Designs Act 1907 (c 29), s 25(2).\r\nLetters patent were granted for “Improvements in or relating to circuit arrangements and\r\ndischarge tubes for amplifying electric oscillations.”\r\n', 'LORD BLANESBURGH', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-30', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Patents'),
(923, 'Murray v Schwachman Limited', '', '../links/cases/Murray v Schwachman Limited.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Murray v Schwachman Limited\r\nFactories and Shops – Dangerous machine – Obligation of workman to use guard –\r\nInstruction by employer – Factory and Workshop Act 1901 (c 22), s 10 – Woodworking\r\nMachinery Regulations 1922 (SR & O 1922, No 1196), regs 17, 23.\r\n', 'HILBERY J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-28', 'HEALTH; Health and safety at work'),
(924, 'Musson v Moxley', '', '../links/cases/Musson v Moxley.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Musson v Moxley\r\nAgency – Estate agent – Commission – Agreement for sale subject to deposit being paid\r\nwithin ten days – Failure to pay deposit – Repudiation by vendor.\r\nThe defendant verbally agreed to employ the plaintiff, an estate agent, to see certain property.\r\nOn 14 July 1935, the plaintiff obtained an offer from W & Co to purchase the property and he\r\ncommunicated this offer to the defendant, who accepted it by letter on 6 July 1935, subject to\r\na contract being signed and a deposit being paid within “say 10 days.”', 'HORRIDGE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-20', 'CONTRACT'),
(925, 'Nash v Stevenson Transport Limited', '', '../links/cases/Nash v Stevenson Transport Limited.pdf', 'Yes', 'SCOTT LJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Nash v Stevenson Transport Limited\r\nStreet traffic – Licence – Goods Vehicles – Right to licence – Agreement for use of name and\r\ntonnage – Illegality – Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933 (c 53), ss 1(1), (3), (8), 7, 8, 16, 21.', 'LORD ROCHE', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-06', 'ENVIRONMENTAL: TRANSPORT; Road'),
(926, 'National Carbonising Co Ltd v British Coal Distillation Ltd', '', '../links/cases/National Carbonising Co Ltd v British Coal Distillation Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', ' ROMER LJJ, AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'National Carbonising Co Ltd v British Coal Distillation Ltd\r\nPatent – Licence – Covenant by licensee to communicate improvements – Assignment of\r\npatent – Enforcement of covenant.\r\nA patentee granted a licence, one term of which was that the licensee should communicate\r\nfurther improvements.\r\n', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-07', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Patents'),
(927, 'Nawab Major Sir Mohammad Akbar Khan v Attar Singh', '', '../links/cases/Nawab Major Sir Mohammad Akbar Khan v Attar Singh.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD ATKIN, SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON, SIR SHADI LAL, SIR GEORGE RANKIN', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Nawab Major Sir Mohammad Akbar Khan v Attar Singh\r\nBills of Exchange – Promissory note – Deposit receipt stating terms of repayment – Whether\r\npromissory note.\r\nThe plaintiff deposited the sum of Rs43,900 with the defendants and received a deposit\r\nreceipt in the following form:\r\n', 'LORD BLANESBURGH, ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-06', 'BANKING AND FINANCE: COMMONWEALTH; '),
(928, 'Nelson v Blackford', '', '../links/cases/Nelson v Blackford.pdf', 'Yes', ' DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Nelson v Blackford\r\nStreet traffic – Express carriage – Road service licence – Special occasion – Road Traffic Act\r\n1930 (c 43) s 61(1).\r\nA motor car adapted to carry less than 8 persons was used to convey 4 persons from Leeds to\r\nBlackpool in order that those persons might view the illuminations there.\r\n\r\n\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-24', 'CRIMINAL; Road Traffic: TRANSPORT; Road'),
(929, 'Newell v Cross. Newell v Cook. Newell v Plume. Newell v Chenery', '', '../links/cases/Newell v Cross.pdf', 'Yes', ' DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Newell v Cross. Newell v Cook. Newell v Plume. Newell v Chenery\r\nStreet Traffic – Express carriage – Use of hackney carriage as an express carriage – Sharing\r\nof fare by passengers – Owner permitting such use – Road Traffic Act 1930 (c 43) ss 61,\r\n72(10).\r\nMiss C engaged a taxi-driver to drive her and six of her friends from Ipswich to Shotley, a\r\ndistance of ten miles, on the following night, the agreed fare being fourteen shillings.\r\n\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-12', 'CRIMINAL; Road Traffic: TRANSPORT; Road'),
(930, 'Odhams Press Ltd v London and Provincial Sporting News Agency(1929) Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Odhams Press Ltd v London and Provincial Sporting News Agency.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Odhams Press Ltd v London and Provincial Sporting News Agency (1929) Ltd\r\nCopyright – Compilation – No evidence of any specific infringement – Declaratory judgment\r\n– Possible infringement by documents not yet in existence – RSC Ord XXV, r 5.\r\nTwo gentlemen, on behalf of the plaintiffs, obtained information on racecourses as to the\r\ncourse of the betting on races, and thus ascertained and recorded in a book the starting prices\r\nof the horses in the races.\r\n\r\n', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-07', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Copyright'),
(931, 'Olding v Olding', '', '../links/cases/Olding v Olding.pdf', 'Yes', 'LANGTON J', '1936', 'High Court', 'Olding v Olding\r\nDivorce – Summary jurisdiction – Maintenance order – Summons for arrears – Countersummons\r\nissued and made returnable on day of hearing – Particulars of adultery.\r\nA summons by a wife for arrears of maintenance had been twice adjourned by reason of a\r\nstatement by the husband that he intended to take counter-proceedings for the discharge of\r\nthe order on the ground of the wife’s adultery.\r\n', ' SIR BOYD MERRIMAN P ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-14', 'FAMILY; Ancillary Finance and Property'),
(932, 'Oliver v Dickin', '', '../links/cases/Oliver v Dickin.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Oliver v Dickin\r\nCopyright – Pleading – Infringement – Reproduction of substantial parts of work infringed.\r\nInjunction – Defence – Offer of undertaking with denial of liability.\r\n(i) In an action arising out of an alleged infringement of copyright the plaintiff, after setting\r\nout the literary works in which he claimed the copyright, pleaded that “the defendant has\r\nauthorised the reproduction of the said works.”\r\n\r\n\r\n', ' BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-02', ' CIVIL PROCEDURE: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Copyright'),
(933, 'Olsen and Another v Corry and the Gravesend Aviation Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Olsen and Another v Corry and the Gravesend Aviation Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Olsen and Another v Corry and the Gravesend Aviation Ltd\r\nMaster and Servant – Apprenticeship – Benefit of infant – Common employment – Volenti\r\nnon fit injuria – Imperfect system of teaching – Delegation of instruction.\r\n\r\n', 'GREAVES-LORD J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-19', ' EMPLOYMENT; Contract of Service'),
(934, 'Olsen and Another v Corry and the Gravesend Aviation Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Olsen and Another v Corry and the Gravesend Aviation Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Olsen and Another v Corry and the Gravesend Aviation Ltd\r\nMaster and Servant – Apprenticeship – Benefit of infant – Common employment – Volenti\r\nnon fit injuria – Imperfect system of teaching – Delegation of instruction.\r\n\r\n', ' GREAVES-LORD J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-19', 'EMPLOYMENT; Contract of Service'),
(935, 'Oscar Faber v Commissioners of Inland Revenue', '', '../links/cases/Oscar Faber v Commissioners of Inland Revenue.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Oscar Faber v Commissioners of Inland Revenue\r\nRevenue – Stamp – Sale of Annuity – Allotment of Shares – Valuation of Shares – Stamp\r\nAct 1891 (c 39), ss 14(4), 60.\r\nBy a deed of covenant executed in Canada the appellant, in consideration of the allotment to\r\nhim of certain shares in a Canadian company, agreed to pay to the company for such period\r\nas he should continue to carry on his profession an annual sum “equal to nine-tenths of the\r\ntotal income derived from” his profession which was carried on in England.\r\n', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-17', ' TAXATION; Stamp Duties'),
(936, 'Owners of the Steamship “Grainton” v Owners of the Steamship “Genua”', '', '../links/cases/Owners of the Steamship.pdf', 'Yes', 'TRINITY MASTERS', '1936', 'High Court', 'Owners of the Steamship “Grainton” v Owners of the Steamship “Genua”\r\nShipping – Collision – Consequential damage – Beaching – Negligence by damaged vessel –\r\nAggravation of damage.', 'LANGTON J ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-19', 'SHIPPING'),
(937, 'P Carter (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Mrs L T Sharon', '', '../links/cases/P Carter.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'P Carter (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Mrs L T Sharon\r\nIncome tax – Foreign possessions – New resident – Income from same source in previous\r\nyear – Finance Act 1926 (c 22), s 29(1)(b)(iv) – Meaning of “income” – Part of income\r\ntransmitted to named person in England – Gift of such part complete in foreign country –\r\nIncome Tax Act 1918 (c 40), Sched D, Case V, r 2 – Miscellaneous Rules applicable to\r\nSched D, r 1.\r\n', ' LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-19', 'TAXATION; Income Tax'),
(938, 'Parent Trust & Finance Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Parent Trust.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Parent Trust & Finance Co Ltd\r\nGuarantee – Guarantee of secured loan – Whether security for loan a condition precedent –\r\nUsual clause for guarantors to be liable as principal debtors.\r\nCompanies – Winding up – Debt carrying interest – When interest ceases to run – Rate of\r\ninterest.\r\n\r\n\r\n', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-20', 'BANKING AND FINANCE: COMPANY; Insolvency'),
(939, 'Parker and another v Jackson and another', '', '../links/cases/Parker and another v Jackson and another.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Parker and another v Jackson and another\r\nMortgage – Transfer of mortgage – No notice to mortgagor – Debt due from original\r\nmortgagee to mortgagor – Set-off.\r\nA firm of solicitors held about £2,000 belonging to the estate of one of their clients. The\r\nclient had before his death mortgaged certain property to secure a sum of £700.\r\n\r\n\r\n', ' FARWELL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-24', ' LAND; Mortgages'),
(940, 'Payne v The Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation', '', '../links/cases/Payne v The Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD WRIGHT MR, SIR ISAAC ISAACS AND SIR GEORGE RANKIN', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Payne v The Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation\r\nPrivy Council – Australia – Income tax – Income derived from English investments – Return\r\nmade in Australia – Currency in which return must be expressed.\r\nThe appellant, a resident in Australia, included in his return for the purposes of federal\r\nincome tax £5,671 interest on investments in England, received and retained to his account in\r\nEngland.\r\n\r\n\r\n', ' VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC, ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-23', 'Categories: COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries: TAXATION; Double Taxation'),
(941, 'Pennsylvania Shipping Co v Compagnie Nationale de Navigation', '', '../links/cases/Pennsylvania Shipping Co v Compagnie Nationale de Navigation.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Pennsylvania Shipping Co v Compagnie Nationale de Navigation\r\nArbitration – Action to restrain – Contract with arbitration clause – Pleading – Contract –\r\nRepresentation – Merger in contract – Condition precedent.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n', ' BRANSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-03', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Arbitration: SHIPPING'),
(942, 'Performing Right Society Ltd v Camelo', '', '../links/cases/Performing Right Society Ltd v Camelo.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Performing Right Society Ltd v Camelo\r\nCopyright – Infringement – Public performance – Wireless loud-speaker – Room adjoining\r\nrestaurant.\r\n', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-11-09', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Copyright'),
(943, 'Permanent Trustee Company of New South Wales Ltd and Another v Bridgewater', '', '../links/cases/Permanent Trustee Company of New South Wales Ltd and Another v Bridgewater.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MACMILLAN, SIR LYMAN POORE DUFF', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Permanent Trustee Company of New South Wales Ltd and Another v Bridgewater\r\nPrivy Council – New South Wales – Sale of reversion – Undervalue – Independent\r\nprofessional advice – Sales of Reversions Act 1867 (c 4), s 1 – New South Wales\r\nConveyancing Act 1919 (No 6), s 30.\r\n', 'LORD ATKIN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-16', 'LAND; Sale of Land: COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries'),
(944, 'Peterborough Royal Foxhound Show Society v Commissioners of Inland Revenue', '', '../links/cases/Peterborough Royal Foxhound Show Society v Commissioners of Inland Revenue.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Peterborough Royal Foxhound Show Society v Commissioners of Inland Revenue\r\nIncome tax – Exemption – Charity – Society to promote interests of foxhound breeding –\r\nAgricultural society – Income Tax Act 1918 (c 40), s 37 – Finance Act 1921 (c 32), s 30 –\r\nFinance Act 1923 (c 14), s 11 – Finance Act 1924 (c 21), s 23 – Finance Act 1927 (c 10),\r\ns 24.\r\n', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-31', ' CHARITIES: TAXATION; Income Tax'),
(945, 'Philip Michael Faraday v The Auctioneers’ and Estate Agents’ Institute of the United Kingdom', '', '../links/cases/Philip Michael Faraday v The Auctioneers.pdf', 'Yes', ' ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Philip Michael Faraday v The Auctioneers’ and Estate Agents’ Institute of the United Kingdom\r\nAuctioneers – Professional Association – Restrictions on Members – Rule of Conduct –\r\n“Establish or join, either as principal or assistant, any commercial firm.”\r\n', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-11', 'CONTRACT: PROFESSIONS; Other Professions'),
(946, 'Pick v Paling', '', '../links/cases/Pick v Paling.pdf', 'Yes', ' MACKINNON AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Pick v Paling\r\nMaster and Servant – Workmen’s Compensation – Redemption of weekly payment –\r\nAgreement both to provide work and to pay compensation – Basis of redemption.\r\n\r\n\r\n', ' SLESSER LJ,', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-14', 'EMPLOYMENT; Other Employment: HEALTH; Health and safety at work'),
(947, 'Plunkett and Another v Barclays Bank Limited', '', '../links/cases/Plunkett and Another v Barclays Bank Limited.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Plunkett and Another v Barclays Bank Limited\r\nBankers – Cheques – Dishonour – Clients account.\r\nThe plaintiff, in compliance with the Solicitors Act 1933, and the Solicitors Accounts Rules\r\n1935, opened an account at the defendant bank into which he paid certain moneys for and on\r\nbehalf of clients.\r\n\r\n', 'DU PARCQ J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-12', 'BANKING AND FINANCE'),
(948, 'Port of London Authority v Owners of SS “Clan Colquhoun”', '', '../links/cases/Port of London Authority v Owners of SS.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Port of London Authority v Owners of SS “Clan Colquhoun”\r\nShipping – Contract of towage – Commencement of towage – Contract for more than one tug\r\n– Port of London Dock Bye-laws 1928, No 19.\r\nThe Port of London Authority, under a towage contract, supplied two tugs to the defendants’\r\nship “Clan Colquhoun.”\r\n\r\n\r\n', 'BUCKNILL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-25', 'SHIPPING'),
(949, 'Potato Marketing Board v Harlow', '', '../links/cases/Potato Marketing Board v Harlow.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Potato Marketing Board v Harlow\r\nAgriculture – Marketing scheme – Charge on registered producers – Exceeding basic acreage\r\n– Uniform charge on all registered producers – Potato Marketing Scheme, SR & O 1933, No\r\n1186.\r\n', 'HORRIDGE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-17', 'AGRICULTURE'),
(950, 'Prosser v Richings and Another', '', '../links/cases/Prosser v Richings and Another.pdf', 'Yes', 'TALBOT AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Prosser v Richings and Another\r\nStreet Traffic – Heavy motor vehicle – Weight transmitted to road surface – Ascertainment of\r\nweight – Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1931 (SR & O 1931, No 4), reg\r\n59.\r\n\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ, ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-21', 'CRIMINAL; Police: TRANSPORT; Road'),
(951, '1. JACOB OSEI YEBOAH (JOY) 2.	JOINT ALLIANCE YOUTH MOVEMENT  3.	MACHO MEN FOR GOOD & JUSTICE  VRS THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION (EC) ', '', 'links/cases/(Juddmt) Jecob O. Yeboa vs. The EC (31 oct 16).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'delete the deceased, minors and any “undesirables” through Exhibition Verification process, C.I. 19, re-open/extend the Exhibition for votes register, Political Parties law, Act 574, Sections 14(2), C.I. 47 ', 'GIFTY AGYEI ADDO, J. A', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-10-31', 'C.I. 19, '),
(952, 'DR. OWUSU AFRIYIE AKOTO VRS. ADWOA ABRAFI AKOTO	', '', 'links/cases/Akoto vs Akoto (Judgmt) (13 July, 16).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, HUMAN RIGHTS COURT ONE HELD IN ACCRA ON TUESDAY THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2016 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP DENNIS ADJEI, J. A, SITTING AS AN ADDITIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGE\r\n																	                      	SUIT NO: DMC 1439/97\r\n\r\nDR. OWUSU AFRIYIE AKOTO	…..	 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER\r\nVRS.\r\nADWOA ABRAFI AKOTO		…..	 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT\r\n\r\nJ  U  D  G  M  E  N T \r\n\r\nLand Valuation Division of the Lands Commission fixed the Market Value of property No. 7, Cedar Crescent, Ridge Residential area Kumasi for GH¢1,721,000.00. The Valuer commissioned by the Respondent/Applicant that is, (AESL) fixed the Market Value for GH¢3,063,027.00 and the Forced Sale Value for GH¢2,144,119.00.  \r\n\r\nThe Land Valuation fixed the Market Value of property No. 20, Block ‘G’, North Patase Kumasi for GH¢866,500.00. The Valuer engaged by the Respondent/Applicant (AESL) fixed the Market Value for GH¢497,573.00 and the Forced Sale Value for GH&#8373;348,300.00. \r\n\r\nThe Land Valuation Division fixed the Market Value for property No 22, East Legon, Accra for GH¢2,100,000.00. The Valuer engaged by the Respondent/Applicant (AESL) fixed the Market Value for the East Legon property for GH&#8373;3,833,542.00 and the Forced Sale value for GH&#8373;2,683,480.00.\r\n\r\nI have examined the two reports issued by AESL and the Valuation Division of the Lands Commission.  There are variations in the prices but the parties were a married couple and are to share the properties as their joint acquired ones. It would be in the interest of the parties to get a Market Value which is high to enable them to get money from the sale of the three properties. I have therefore considered the two valuation reports by AESL and the Land Valuation Division of the Lands Commission as well as the welfare of the parties and I am satisfied that the higher Market Value would promote the welfare of the parties.\r\n\r\nI will therefore fix the appropriate Market Value for the properties as follows: \r\n\r\n1.	Property No 7, Cedar Crescent, Ridge, Kumasi is to be sold for GH&#8373;3,063,027.00.\r\n2.	Property No 20, Block “G”, North Patase, Kumasi is to be sold for GH¢866,500.00.\r\n\r\n3.	The property with No 22, East Legon, Accra is to be sold for GH¢3,833,542.00\r\n\r\nThere will be no order as to cost.\r\n\r\n         (SGD)\r\nDENNIS ADJEI, J.A\r\nJUSTICE OF THE APPEAL COURT \r\n\r\nCounsel \r\nEmmanuel Darkwa Esq holding brief for \r\nFrank Davies Esq for the Plaintiff/Petitioner\r\n\r\nKizito Beyuo Esq, with him Ms. Iris Aggrey-Orleans and\r\nMs. Waltrude Aboagye for the Respondent/Applicant															JA\r\n', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-07-12', 'DMC 1439/97'),
(953, '1. BAR PURITY 2. KWAME AMPONSAHP VRS:  KINGSLEY ADU	', '', 'links/cases/Bar  Purity vs. Kwami Adu (13 July, 16).pdf', 'Yes', '', '', 'High Court', 'The Application is granted as prayed. Let judgment be entered for the Plaintiff in accordance with Order 10 Rule 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules. The Plaintiffs are to serve Entry of Judgment on the Defendant together with a hearing notice.   The suit is adjourned to 28th July, 2016 for evidence.\r\n\r\n          (SGD)\r\nDENNIS ADJEI, J.A\r\nJUSTICE OF THE APPEAL COURT \r\n', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '0000-00-00', 'HR/043/16'),
(954, 'THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES CONQUERORS CHAPEL INT.	  VRS   1.	STEPHEN KWASHIGAH ATIOGBE  2. ANANY  3.	KOFI TAKYI 4.	PETER TETTEY ', '', 'links/cases/Board of Trustee vs Stephen K. Atiogbe & ors  (2March 16).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'Let the terms of settlement filed by the parties on 2nd March, 2016 be entered by the court as a Consent Judgment. The terms of settlement is hereby adopted as a Consent Judgment entered by the Court. Costs of GH&#8373;5,000.00 awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally. The suit is hereby struck out as settled.', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-03-02', 'BL 366/05'),
(955, 'BRAINSFIELD LIMITED VRS ACCRA METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY ', '', 'links/cases/Brainsfield Ltd. vs. AMA (12 dec, 16) judmt.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'Local Government Act 1993 -Act 462 -and the National Building Regulations 1996 - L.I. 1630', 'GIFTY AGYEI ADDO, J. A', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-12-12', 'HRCM/210/2014');
INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(956, 'DR. ADOLF LUTTERODT & 4 ORS VRS. THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE  & ATTORNEY GENERAL &4 ORS', '', 'links/cases/Dr. A. Lutterodt vs. The Minister for Justice (28 July, 16).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'The parties and their respective lawyers in the case have amicably settled the matter. They have duly signed the terms of settlement prepared by them. The terms of settlement was filed on 26th July, 2016 and the respective counsel for the parties have prayed the court to enter the terms of settlement as a consent judgement.\r\nLet the terms of settlement filed on 26th July, 2016 by the parties be entered and same is hereby entered as consent judgement. The suit is struck out as settled per the terms of settlement filed on 26th July, 2016 and same is adopted by the court as its consent judgement\r\n', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-07-28', 'HR/0056/2016'),
(957, 'DR. NII KPOBI TETTEH TSURU III & 2 ORS VRS. AGRIC CATTLE & 4 ORS', '', 'links/cases/Dr. Nii Tetteh Kpobi Tsuru III vs Agric Cattle (7 July, 16).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'Appeal', '“a.	A declaration of title to all that piece of land situate and being at La Tsui Anaa which forms part and parcel of Plaintiff’s land covering an approximate area of 49,420 acres.\r\nb.	An order of court directed at the Land Title Registry to cancel or expunge the transaction between Nungua and 1st and 5th Defendants as well as any other transaction that affect the land described herein.\r\nc.	Recovery of possession.\r\nd.	Damages for trespass.\r\ne.	Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, privies and workmen and personal representatives from entering or offering for sale or having anything to do on that portion or any part of Plaintiff’s land situate and being at Tsui Anaa”.\r\n', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-07-07', 'AL 164/2008'),
(958, '1. EMEFA LOGLO  2. COMFORT EMEFA ADDO VRS. 1.	BURESWAR CHAKRABOTI  2. AVNASH INDUSTRIES GHANA LTD', '', 'links/cases/Emefa Loglo vs Bureswar chakraboti (10 May, 16).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'Let the terms of settlement filed on 21st April, 2016 and duly executed by the parties and their respective lawyers be and is hereby entered as consent judgment. The suit is hereby struck out per the terms incorporated in the consent judgment.	', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-05-10', 'HRC/1/16'),
(959, '1. FRANK KUMAH  2. GEORGE OTENG vrs.  RADFORD UNIVERSITY COLLEGE & 2 ORS', '', 'links/cases/Frank Kumah vs. Radford University  (21 July, 16).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 25, 33 AND 296 OF 1992 CONSTITUTION \r\n\r\nIN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLES 25, 33 AND 296 OF THE 1992 CONSTITUTION AND UNDER ORDERS 53 AND 19 RULE 1 (1) OF C.I. 47 \r\n', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-07-21', 'HR/0033/2016'),
(960, ' FRED KPABITEY QUARSHIE VS. 1. OKO NIIKOI DZANI 2. ALHAJI CHIBSAH SEIDU    3. MABEL DEI', '', 'links/cases/FRED QUARSHIE   HIIGH COURT.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'of Albert Gorma & another V. Eric Anson MLRG (Part 40, May 2012) \r\n\r\nDyer V. Dyer [1788] 2 Qox Eq Cas 92 probabilities. In the case of Moses and Others v Anane [1989]2 GLR 694, it was held that the burden of proof in a claim against a deceased’s estate is the same as pertains in all civil suits that is proof by the preponderance of probabilities but the Court is required to look at the evidence against the deceased with suspicion as the deceased will not get the ', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-10-13', 'FAL 247/11'),
(961, 'GOREGE BOSOMPEM AMOFA VRS. 1.	THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE  2. GHANA POLICE SERVICE  3. ATTORNEY GENERAL	', '', 'links/cases/George B. Ampofa vs The IGP & 2 ors (18 May, 16)   high   court.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', '“REVIEW OF SERVICE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS BY THE CENTRAL DISCIPLINARY BOARD D/INSP. GEORGE BOSOMPEM AMOFA\r\nFollowing the Service Enquiry held into your conduct by DSP/MR. JUSTICE ADUHENE-BENIEH/NIMA DIST. Under Regulation 3 (2) of the Police Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations 1974 (L. I. 993) on charge of MISCONDUCT CONTRARY TO SECTION 17 (K) OF THE POLICE SERVICE ACT, (350) OF 1970 AND SECTION 97 (6) OF THE POLICE SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS the Central Disciplinary Board has, after reviewing the record of proceedings and considering the findings of the adjudicating officer, imposed a sentence of DISMISSAL on you in exercise of the powers vested in the Board under Regulation 3 (i) (a) of the Police Service (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations, 1974 (L. I. 993)…”\r\nCounsel for the Plaintiff has submitted that the Police Service Enquiry was constituted under a wrong enactment and renders same void. Police Force (Disciplinary Proceedings Regulation, 1974 (L.I. 993) (now repealed) was the enabling enactment at the time the Plaintiff was charged to appear before the Service Enquiry. The Plaintiff’s position is that the appointment of DW1 to sit on the Police enquiry was made under Regulation 3 (2) of L.I. 993 which rendered the trial void. Regulation 3 (2) L. I. 993 provides ', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-05-18', 'HRC 41/13'),
(962, 'FRANK ARTHUR AND ANOTHER  VRS AYESHA ABUBAKAR AND OTHERS', '', 'links/cases/High ct judgmts Frank Arthur.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2015', 'High Court', 'The 3rd defendants however admitted demolishing the plaintiffs structures on the disputed land but gave the basis for their action from the statutory powers conferred on District Assemblies by the Local Government Act, 1993 [Act 462] to remove all unauthorised structures constructed without permits.\r\nThe Co-defendant who was joined to the suit by the court suo motu filed its defence and stated that both plaintiffs and 1st and 2nd defendants are trespassers because the grantors of the 1st and 2nd defendants had their interest extinct by the certificate of Title in 1929 which vested the land on behalf of the state. \r\nThe Co-defendant further counterclaimed against the other parties for:\r\n“(i)	Declaration that state is the owner of all that tract of land including the subject matter of dispute by virtue of a Certificate of Title dated 1929.\r\n(ii)	Recovery of possession.\r\n(iii)	Cancellation of Land Title Certificate No. GA 15945.\r\n(iv)	Damages for trespass”.\r\nAt the close of pleadings nine specific issues were set down for the resolution of the matter. The important issue that would largely determine the matter is the one who owns the disputed land. All the parties proffered evidence at the trial to prove their respective claims.\r\nThe plaintiffs in their evidence chief stated, inter alia, that they had been on the disputed land for years and constructed a car washing bay on the land on the authority of the building permits granted to them by the 3rd defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that after the acquisition of the land from Gbese Stool, they conducted a search which revealed that the disputed land was affected by an Executive Instrument which vested the land in the State in 1929. T', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2015-10-12', 'AL 158/2007'),
(963, 'HABIB ALI TOURE & 2 ORS  VRS MAWULI PORSOO & 3 ORS', '', 'links/cases/High ct judgmts Habib Ali.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2015', 'High Court', 'Adeyema. The said Aliyu Akambi Adeyemo declared to a Statutory Declaration dated 26th September, 2001 as the family representative of the Adeyemo family of Accra. The Statutory Declaration was tendered as exhibit ‘B’. he declared in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Statutory Declaration as follows:\r\n“5.	That the entire premises (H/No. C 405/9) has with my consent and that of the entire Adeyemo family been sold to ALI MOHAMMED ALI TOURE, P. O. Box 5834, Accra Ghana.\r\n6.	That I make this solemn declaration to serve as a document transferring the said property outrightly to MOHAMMED ALI TOURE and that having transferred to him, the house henceforth becomes this bona fide property without a challenge from any quarters”.\r\nExhibit ‘C’, being the payment receipt was also issued by the same Adeyemo Aliyu.\r\nThe next issue to resolve is who is this Adeyemo Aliyu alias Aliyu Akambi Adeyemo? The plaintiffs in their pleadings and their evidence in Court of sought to prove that Aliyu Akambi Adeyemo was a child of Alhaji Issifu Adeyemo. Under cross examination, the defendants challenged the plaintiffs that the said Aliyu Akambi Adeyemo was not a biological son of the late Alhaji Issifu Adeyemo and they failed to prove that he was his son. The defendants on the other-hand were able to prove that Aliyu Akambi Adeyema was a step child of their grandfather, the late Alhaji Issifu Adeyemo. I am satisfied based on the evidence adduced by the parties that the plaintiffs who claimed that their grantor bought the house from proper person; that is, Aliyu Akambi Adeyemo, failed to prove by preponderance of the probabilities that Aliyu Akambi Adeyemo had interest in the property by virtue of being a son of the original lessee. They also failed to prove that he is an administrator of the lessee and therefore had capacity to alienate the disputed property. The plaintiffs who had the burden of persuasion with respect to the capacity of their grantor failed to establish a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of this court that their grantor was a child of the deceased, and, furthermore, he had capacity to alienate the property. The plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements imposed on them by Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (N.R.C.D 323) and this court is of the considered opinion that their grantor lacked capacity to alienate the disputed property and any purported alienation  by him is void.\r\nThe persons with capacity to alienate the disputed property are the administrators of the estate of the late Alhaji Yusif Adeyemo being Philomena Porsoo and Abdul Raimi Yusif. I am satisfied that at the time the plaintiffs grantor, purported to have bought the disputed property, the administrators of Alhaji Yusif Adeyemoh were alive and they were the only competent persons to alienate the property.\r\nThe conveyance executed in favour of the plaintiffs’ grantor by Aliyu Adeyemo is void for lack of capacity to deal with the property. The conveyance which is void was not registered in accordance with Section 24 (1) of the Land Registry Act, Act 122 and would not have had a legal efficacy until it was registered if it had been executed by a person with capacity to deal with it.\r\nExhibit ‘B’, the Statutory Declaration declared to by Aliyu Akambi Adeyema is not an instrument effecting land and does not need to be registered under both the Land Registry Act and the Land Title Registration Act, 1986 (P.N.D.C.L. 152). It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Agbosu and others V. Kotey and other [2005 – 2006] GLR 685 that Statutory Declaration does not create proprietary rights in its holder even though it may be used as an evidence to prove title. Exhibit ‘B’ equally does not have any legal effect as the person who made the declaration contained in the statutory declaration therein lacked capacity to make it. The Plaintiffs grantor is a fraudster as he made an alienation which he knew he lacked capacity to do. The plaintiff action fails ', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2015-10-12', 'BL 472/06'),
(964, 'FREDERICK ANIM ADDO	 VRS  KOACONSULT', '', 'links/cases/HR jmt - Frederick Anim Addo vs. Koaconsult (5 Nov 15).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2015', 'Supreme', 'Intestate Succession Act, PNDCL 111. Hammond Vs. Amuah [1991] 1 GLR 89 and Fori Vs. Ayirebi [1966] GLR 267. In the case of Takoradi Flour Mills Vs. Samir Fares [2005 – 2006] SCGLR 882 - Section 35 of the Evidence Act, NRCD 323 ', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2015-11-05', 'AC 639/12'),
(965, 'MAGNUS DE GRAFT MENDS & 2 ORS VRS.  MARY ATTA BOAKYE & 2 ORS', '', 'links/cases/HR judgmt - Magnus De Graft Mends (2nd Nov 15).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2015', 'High Court', 'nable doubt. Section 13 (1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (Act 323) \r\nof In Re Poku (d’sed); Appiah Poku & Others [2011] SCGLR 162 the Supreme \r\n\r\n“It is an entrenched trite principle of law that fraud unravels everything and, that a judgment obtained by fraud can be impeached b\r\ny fresh action. However, this general rule is not a right conferred by the common law free from all encumbrances or obligations. One such encumbrance, which is relevant to the facts of this case, is the necessity to exercise diligence at the first instance. It is clearly established that if a party be actually or constructively cognisant of fraudulent matters in the first action but fails to avail himself to them at that time, he cannot thereafter seek to impeach the decree of the court on those grounds”.\r\n', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2015-11-02', 'AHR 39/11  1.	 2.	DOCIA DE-GRAFT MENDS                    	     PLAINTIFFS 3.	NANCY DE-GRAFT MENDS'),
(966, 'INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS (GHANA)	VRS. THE DIRECTOR - GENERAL  SECURITY AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION     ', '', 'links/cases/ICA vs The Director Gen. Security & Exchange (11 Jan 16).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'Section 135 of PNDCL 333 , Boateng II [1992-83] v. Dua [1992-93] GBR 278 and Asante Appiah v. Amponsah [2009] SCGLR 90, Republic v. Korle Gonno District Magistrate Court 1, Ex parte Ampomah [1991] 1 GLR 353 CA ', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-01-11', 'HRCM 246/15'),
(967, ' ISAAC AGYEKUM GYAMFI  VRS ATTORNEY GENERAL & 4 ORS', '', 'links/cases/Isaac G. Agyekum vs. A-G etc (12 Jan 16).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'Republic (Nos 2) v National House of Chiefs, ex parte Akrofa Krukoko II (Enimil VI Interested Party (Nos 2) (2010 J SCGR 134.  \r\n\r\nRepublic v Chieftaincy Secretariat and Another; Ex Parte Adansi Traditional Council (1968) GLR 736 \r\n\r\nThe Applicant brought the suit under articles 18 and 21 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana and Order 67 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (C.I.47 claiming for the ', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-01-12', 'HRCM 298/14'),
(968, 'SAMUEL METTLE NUNOO VRS  ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF GHANA ', '', 'links/cases/Jmt - Samuel M. Nunoo vs ECG (26 Nov 15).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2015', 'High Court', 'In the case of Adwubeng v. Domfeh [1996-99] SCGLR 660 the Supreme Court held that the standard burden of proof in all civil cases is proof by the preponderance of probabilities. The plaintiff had the burden to prove that his dismissal was wrongful. From the evidence on record and the exhibits tendered, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that his dismissal was wrongful. \r\n                 \r\nin the case of Kobeah v. Tema Oil Refinery; Boateng v. Tema Oil Refinery (Consolidated), [2003-2005] 1 GLR 485. Additionally, the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) ', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2015-11-26', ' INDL 39/2011  '),
(969, 'JUSTICE GILBERT MENSAH QUAYE VRS. KOIWA INVESTMENT CO. LTD & OTHERS', '', 'links/cases/Justice G. M. Quaye vs. Kowie (31 Oct, 16) Ruling.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'Mosi v. Bagyina [1963] 1 GLR 337 the Supreme Court held that the “notice of the proceedings” are reference to the proceedings culminated in the judgment. ', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-10-31', 'TRLD 13/09     '),
(970, 'THE REPUBLIC  VRS  1.	THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (I.G.P) 2.	ATTORNEY GENERAL ', '', 'links/cases/jmt-The Rep vs. IGP, & 2 ors. (26 Nov 15).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2015', 'High Court', 'Mandamus is an order directed to a Public Officer to perform his lawfully duty. The applicant is inviting this court to consider Section 2(1) (a) and 2 of the Public Order Act 1994; Section (1) of the Police Service Act, 1970 and Articles 33(1) (2), 17 (1) (2) (3), 21 (1) (d), 23, 296, 200 (1) (3) of the 1992 Constitution - In the case of Larbie Mensah alias Aryee Addoquaye v. National House of Chiefs and another [2011] 2 SCGLR 883 the Supreme Court held that where a person brings a mandamus application under article 23;', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2015-11-26', 'HRCM 341/15      '),
(971, 'NII OFORI KWATCHEY & 2 ORS VRS.  ISAAC ARYEE ANKRAH & 2 0RS', '', 'links/cases/Judgmt (Nii Ofori Kwakyi vs. Isaac A. Ankrah) 13 Oct, 16.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'Section 2(6) of the Wills Act, 1971 (Act 360) which requires a certificate by a competent person for illiterate or blind person who makes a will provides thus:\r\n“Where the testator is blind or illiterate, a competent person shall carefully read over and explain the contents of the will before it is executed, and that competent person shall declare in writing on the will that the will had been read over and its content explained to the testator appeared perfectly to understand the will before the will was executed.” - the Evidence Act, NRCD 323 - In Re Okine (decd’); Dodoo and Another V. Okine and Others [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 582 the Supreme Court held that the burden of prove with respect to its validity is on the person or the propounder of the will who must prove that the will was freely executed by the testator who was a competent testator at the time the will was made and executed.\r\n', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-10-13', 'BFA 14/2007'),
(972, 'KENNETH GYAN KESSE & 87 OTHERS VRS.  1. THE NATIONAL SECURITY COORDINATOR 2. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL         ', '', 'links/cases/Kenneth G. Kesse vs The NSC & A-G (17 March 16).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'The Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) - Security and Intelligence Agencies Act, 1996 (Act 526). - In the case of Adwubeng v. Domfeh [1996-97] SCGLR 660 the Supreme Court held that the standard burden of proof in all civil matters is proof by the preponderance of probabilities except where the issue to be resolved in the civil suit is a quasi-criminal or has a criminal element such as fraud where that issue would be determined by the standard burden of proof in criminal matters; that is proof beyond reasonable doubt. - Kobi and Others v. Ghana Manganese Co. Ltd (2007-2008] SCGLR 771. The Supreme Court per Atuguba JSC at page 775 of the record discussed the legal position for failing to make provision for termination in a condition of service. ', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-03-01', 'BMISC 643/2010'),
(973, 'LEONARDO LAMPTEY & 11 ORS VRS. GHANA INVESTMENT PROMOTION CENTRE', '', 'links/cases/Leonardo Lamptey vs Gh. Investment Promo. (7 July, 16).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'Evidence Act - This position of law has been discussed in a list of cases including Adwubeng v. Domfeh [1996-97] SCGLR 660. - In the case of P. Y. Atta and Sons Ltd. V. Kingsman Enterprise Ltd. [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 946. It was held that in construing documents such as Conditions of Service, effect should be given to the intention of the parties and that can be gathered after reading the contract as a whole. - of Nartey-Tokoli and others v. Volta Aluminium Co. Ltd. (No. 2) (1989-90) 2 GLR 341, the Supreme court held that the appropriate remedy for declaring an employee’s exit from his employment when is found to be wrongful is damages', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-07-07', 'INDL 5/2014'),
(974, '1.MAD. GRACE ACHEAMPONG  2. COMFORT GYAMPOBEA VRS. 1.DWADIFO ADAMFO MIRCO FINANCE CO. LTD,  2. CPS SECURITY', '', 'links/cases/Mad. Grace Acheampong  vs. Dwadifo Adanfo & ors (5 May, 16).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'Order 9 Rule 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C.I. 47 - In the case of Adwubeng v Domfeh (1996 – 97) SGCLR 660 the Supreme Court held that the standard burden of proof in civil matters is proof on the preponderance of probabilities without any exception to it. - Mr Patrick Tettey v SG-SSB Bank (Gh) Ltd (unreported) Suit No. H1/198/2010 delivered on 3rd March 2011; the Court of Appeal held that the normal function of damages is to adequately compensate the innocent party to repair his actual loss and not to punish the tortfeasor by conferring a windfall on the victim. ', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-05-05', 'HR/00010/015'),
(975, 'DR. MRS. MAGARET IVY AMOAKOHENE VRS  MAXWEL KOFI AMOAKOHENE', '', 'links/cases/Mrs. vs.  Mr. Amoakohene (13 Jan, 16).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'heard both parties and also read the respective addresses on the valuation report filed by the parties. The valuation report prepared and issued on by the Land Valuation Division of the Lands Commission fixed the market value for the property at GH¢560,300,', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-01-13', 'TMISC/22/13'),
(976, 'THE REPUBLIC VRS  1.	CIRCUIT COURT 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL', '', 'links/cases/The Rep vs. Circuit Court, Accra (2 June 16).pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'Non-Banking Financial Institution without licence contrary to Section 23 (1) of Act 29/60 and Section 2 (1) of Act 7741/2008. - Macfoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961] All ER 1169 at 1172 by Lord Denning thus:\r\n“If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. … Any every proceeding which is founded on it also bad and incurably bad”. - Lazard Brothers & Co. v. Midland Bank Ltd [1932] 1 KB 617 CA, it was held that \r\n“Void judgment may be set aside on appeal by an appellate court”. - Acheampong v. The Republic [1996-97] SCGLR 56 at 576 the Supreme Court held thus:\r\n“There is a well-established general principle of law that proceedings that are a nullity are automatically null and void and upon an application for the purpose, they must be set aside ex debito justitiae and the court itself is under a duty to set them aside; time is not of essence here”.\r\n\r\n\r\n', 'DENNIS ADJEI, J. A.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-06-02', 'HRCM/145/13'),
(977, 'ISSAKA MOHAMMED vrs. JAMES ASIWOH AMENYAGLO', '', 'links/cases/ISSAKA MOHAMMED VRS JAMES ASIWOH AMENYAGLO.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', ' S.12(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) defines “preponderance of probabilities” - KPAKPO BORWN V BOSOMTWI & CO. (2001.2002) SCGLR 876 both parties had claimed title to the same piece of land.  It was held by the Supreme Court per AMPIAH JSC (as he then was) at p.879 that both parties were claiming title to land.  - YOGUO V AGYEKUM [1966] GLR 482 at 493 held:\r\n“A valid gift under customary law is an unequivocal transfer of ownership by the donor to the donee, made with the widest publicity which the circumstances of the case may permit.  For the purposes of the required publicity, the gift is made in the presence of independent witnesses, some of whom should be members of the family of the donor who would have succeeded to the property if the donor had died intestate and also, in the presence of members of the family of the donee who would also succeed to the property upon the death of the done intestacy.\r\n', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-05-16', 'BL.388/2008'),
(978, 'ANASMAN AKUMBAN  VRS   FRANK KORUS & ANOR.', '', 'links/cases/10TH JUNE, 2016 - ANASMAN AKUMBUM.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'DAN ACKAH V. PERGAH TRANSPORT - FORI V. AYIREBI & ORS. [1966] GLR 625 per holding 6, the Supreme Court held that:\r\n\r\n“When a party had made an averment and that averment was not denied, no issue was joined and no evidence need to be led on that averment.  Similarly when a party had given evidence of a material fact and was not cross examined upon, he need not call further evidence of that fact”.\r\n', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-06-10', 'BMISC/1095/12'),
(979, 'ABAIB @ ALHASSAN DAMBA   VRS:  THE REPUBLIC', '', 'links/cases/ABAIB ALHASSAN DAMBA VRS THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', ' Stealing and Stealing Contrary to Sections 23 (1) and 124 (1) of Act 29 - ROBERTSON V THE REPUBLIC [2015] 80 GMJ 45 per OWUSU (MS) JSC, the Supreme Court stated as follows:\r\n“Sentencing is discretionary and where the discretion has been judicially exercised, an appellant court has no just cause to interfere with the exercise of the discretion.  The principles upon which the court would act on an appeal against sentence were that it would not interfere with a sentence on the mere ground that if members of the court had been trying the appellant, they might have passed a somewhat different sentence.  The court will interfere only when it was of opinion that the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the circumstance of the case or that the sentence was wrong in principle.” -\r\n', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-09-08', 'CR494/2016'),
(980, 'ABUBAKARI MAHAMUD @ SADICK VRS. THE REPUBLIC', '', 'links/cases/ABUBAKARI MAHAMUD.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'the Criminal and other Offences Act, 1960, Act 29 ', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-03-15', 'BCRA 206/2015'),
(981, 'ANANE KWAME & ANOR. VRS THE REPUBLIC', '', 'links/cases/ANANE KWAME & ANOR VRS THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'Narcotic Drugs Control, Enforcement and Sanctions - Law 1990 - PNDCL 236 - ABU & OTHERS V THE REPUBLIC [1980] GLR 294, submitted that the appellants are not known and also first offenders, for which reason Counsel prayed the Court to deal leniently with them by replacing the 15 years I.H.L imposed on the appellants with 10 years I.H.L. - of DABLA V THE REPUBLIC 1980 GLR 516 – 517 Counsel submitted that the fact that sentences should reflect roles played by each party is not applicable to this case as the trial Judge did not believe that any person other than the appellants masterminded the offence in question. - ROBERTSON V THE REPUBLIC [2015] 80 GMJ 45 PER OWUSU (MS) JSC, the Supreme Court stated as follows:\r\n“Sentencing is discretionary and where the discretion has been judiciously exercised, an appellate Court has no just cause to interfere with the exercise of the discretion.  The principles upon which the Court would act on on appeal against sentence were that it would not interfere with a sentence on the mere ground that if members of the Court had been trying the appellant, they might have passed a somewhat different sentence.  The Court will interfere only when it was of opinion that the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the circumstances of this case or that the sentence was wrong in principle.”\r\n', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-06-09', 'CRA230/15'),
(982, 'CEPHAS OFOSU SAKYI  VRS THE REPUBLIC', '', 'links/cases/CEPHAS OFOSU SAKYI VRS. THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'DABLA V THE REPUBLIC [1980] GLR 501 Counsel submitted that the appellant was not the principal actor in so far as the commission of the offences charged were concerned but rather the A3 who was convicted and sentenced in absentia - REPUBLIC V BOFAH [1968] GLR 620, where it was held that too lenient a sentence for a serious offence is improper.  - ROBERTSON V THE REPUBLIC [2015] GMJ 45 PER OWUSU (MS) JSC, the Supreme Court stated as follows:\r\n“Sentencing is discretionary and where the discretion has been judiciously exercised, an appellate Court has no just cause to interfere with the exercise of the discretion.  The principles upon which the Court would act on an appeal against sentence were that it would not interfere with a sentence on the mere ground that if members of the Court has been trying the appellant, they might have passed a somewhat different sentence.  The Court will interfere only when it was of opinion that the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the circumstances of this case or that the sentence was wrong in principle.”\r\n', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-07-22', 'CR.131/16'),
(983, 'CHARLES AFFRAN VRS   SG-SSB LIMITED', '', 'links/cases/CHARLES AFFRAN.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'Labour Act, Act 651.-  The Evidence Act, NRCD 323 provides as follows:\r\n\r\n“For the purpose of this Decree, the burden of persuasion means the obligation of a party to establish a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the tribunal or the court.” - TAKORADI FLOUR MILLS V. SAMIR FARIS [2005-2006] SCGLR 882, the Supreme Court enunciates the law, thus:\r\n\r\n“The plaintiff in a civil case is required to produce sufficient evidence to make out his claim on a preponderance of probabilities - BANK OF WEST AFRICAN LTD V ACKUN [1963] 1 GLR 176-182, the court held:\r\n\r\n“The onus of proof in civil cases depends upon the pleadings.  The party, who in his pleadings raises an issue essential to the success of his case, assumes the burden of proof.”\r\n\r\n\r\n', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-06-15', 'INDL/62/2010'),
(984, 'CHRISLINE FINANCIAL SERVICES VRS  HONANI COMMERCIALS LTD. & ANOR', '', 'links/cases/CHRISLINE FINANCIAL SERVICES.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'RE: GOMOA AJUMAKO PARAMOUNT STOOLS, ACQUAH V APAA & ANOR [1998/1999] SCGLR 312, it was held that in appropriate circumstances, a court of law could grant a relief not sought for by a party - BANK OF WEST AFRICAN LTD V ACKUN [1963] 1 GLR 176-182 -\r\n\r\n“The onus of proof in civil cases depends upon the pleadings.  The party, who in his pleadings raises an issue essential to the success of his case, assumes the burden of proof.”\r\n\r\nTAKORADI FLOUR MILLS V. SAMIR FARIS [2005-2006] SCGLR 882, the Supreme Court enunciates the law, -\r\n\r\n“The plaintiff in a civil case is required to produce sufficient evidence to make out his claim on a preponderance of probabilities\r\n', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-07-28', 'AC/206/2010'),
(985, 'FRANCIS PINKRAH JUNIOR VS THE REPUBLIC ', '', 'links/cases/FRANCIS PINKRAH JUNIOR.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'AMPAH V THE REPUBLIC [1976] 1 GLR 403, the court held “If these three essential elements are proved to the satisfaction of the court, then the court will be bound to convict unless the accused is able to put forward some defence or explanation which can cast a reasonable doubt on the case for the prosecution”. -', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-01-28', 'BCRA 219/2015'),
(986, 'CONSTANCE FRIMPOMAA VRS THE REPUBLIC', '', 'links/cases/CONSTANCE FRIMPOMAA VRS THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'In RAZAK V THE REPUBLIC [2012] 50 GMJ 139 SC PER ANSAH JSC, the Supreme Court stated as follows:\r\n	“The factors a Court would consider in determining the length of sentence as stated in KWASHIE V THE REPUBLIC [1971] 1 GLR 488, C.A. are:\r\n1.	The seriousness of the offence\r\n2.	The degree if revulsion felt by law abiding citizens of the society for the particular crime.\r\n3.	The premeditation with which the criminal plan was executed.\r\n4.	The prevalence of the crime within the particular locality where the offence took place or in the Country generally.\r\n5.	The sudden increase in the incidence of the particular crime and\r\n6.	Mitigating or aggravating circumstances such as extreme youthfulness and good character.\r\n\r\nof ROBERTSON V THE REPUBLIC [2015] 80 GMJ 45 PER OWUSU (MS.) JSC, the Supreme Court stated as follows:\r\n“Sentencing is discretionary and where the discretion has been judiciously exercised, an appellate Court has no just cause to interfere with the exercise of the discretion.  The principles upon which the Court would act on on appeal against sentence were that it would not interfere with a sentence on the mere ground that if members of the Court has been trying the appellant, they might have passed a somewhat different sentence.  The Court will interfere only when it was of opinion that the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the circumstances of this case or that the sentence was wrong in principle.”\r\n\r\n', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-05-11', 'CR66/15'),
(987, 'THE REPUBLIC VRS G/SGT DAVID EDWIN DOE & 2 ORS', '', 'links/cases/DAVID EDWIN DOE & 2 ORS.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'Supreme', '11(2)“in a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the prosecution as to any fact which is essential to guilt requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond reasonable doubt.”\r\n\r\n13(1) “in any civil or criminal action, the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.”\r\n\r\n22 “in a criminal action, a presumption operates against the accused as to a fact which is essential to guilt only if the existence of the basic facts that give rise to the presumption are found or otherwise established beyond reasonable doubt, and thereupon, in the case of a rebuttable presumption, the accused need only raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the presumed fact.”\r\n - \r\nTHE BURDEN OF PROOF\r\nPer the Evidence Act, (NRCD 323) - OSEI V THE REPUBLIC [2009] MLRG 203, CA, what proof beyond reasonable doubt entitled was explained when it was held, confirming the long held view that “proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of doubt.   - YEBOAH V THE REPUBLIC [1972] 2GLR 281, where the court held that the guilt of the accused must be proved to that degree of certainty required by law.  Accused persons are not under any obligation to prove his innocence.  However, if a case is made out by the prosecution against them, the law requires that they raise a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.- BREMPONG V THE REPUBLIC [1996/97] SCGLR 627, the Supreme Court held:\r\n\r\n“Where on the evidence, any legitimate defence was open to the accused, the trial judge must consider it whether raised or not and however, stupid or weak it might appear to him to be”.\r\n', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-06-29', 'CR/13/2015 '),
(988, 'EBENEZER AKPEY  VRS. THE REPUBLIC', '', 'links/cases/EBENEZER AKPEY VRS THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'REPUBLIC V. BRIGHT {1974} 2 GLR 12, it was stated that “whenever an accused person pleads guilty but adds words in explanation indicating that he might have a defence to the offence charged, the trial Court is under an obligation to enter a plea of not guilty on his behalf for the case to be contested on its merits” -  in KWEKU V. THE REPUBLIC [1978] GLR297, it was stated that it does not matter from what source the indication that the accused person may have a defence.   Even if the indication comes from the facts given by the prosecution the Court is duly bound to inquire into the plea of guilty announced by the accused and if warranted, enter a plea of not guilty for him. - the Criminal and other Offences Act, 1960 (', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-03-03', 'BCRA232/15'),
(989, 'THE REPUBLIC  VRS  EJIOGU MORGAN EJIKO', '', 'links/cases/EJIOKO MORGAN EJIKO.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', '', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-09-01', 'CR/234/16'),
(990, 'ELVIS KWADWO AMOAKO  VRS THE REPUBLIC', '', 'links/cases/ELVIS KWADWO AMOAKO VRS THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'KWAKU FRIMPONG a.k.a IBOMAN V the republic (SUPRA) AT PAGE 328 that where a minimum custodial sentence is fixed by law, upon conviction, the fact that the accused-appellant is a first offender would be of no consequence -ROBERTSON V THE REPUBLIC [2015] 80 GMJ 45 PER OWUSU 9MS.0 JSC, the Supreme Court stated as follows:-\r\n	“Sentencing is discretionary and where the discretion has been judicially exercised, an appellate court has no just cause to interfere with the exercise of the discretion.\r\nThe principle upon which the Court would act on appeal against sentence were that it would interfere with a sentence on the mere ground that if members of the Court had been trying the appellant they might have passed a somewhat different sentence.  The Court will interfere only when it was manifestly excessive having regard to the circumstances of the case or the sentence was wrong in principle.”\r\n ', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-05-18', 'CR 161/16'),
(991, 'EMMANUEL AWUAH  VRS THE REPUBLIC', '', 'links/cases/EMMANUEL AWUAH VS THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'ROBERTSON V THE REPUBLIC [2015] 80 GMJ 45 PER OWUSU (MS) JSC, the Supreme Court stated as follows:\r\n“Sentencing is discretionary and where the discretion has been judiciously exercised, an appellate Court has no just cause to interfere with the exercise of the discretion.  The principles upon which the Court would act on an appeal against sentence were that it would not interfere with a sentence on the mere ground that if members of the Court had been trying the appellant, they might have passed a somewhat different sentence.  The Court will interfere only when it was of opinion that the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the circumstances of this case or that the sentence was wrong in principle”. -carnal knowledge contrary to section 104 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29\r\n', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-06-29', '186/16'),
(992, 'EMMANUEL NYARKO  VRS.  THE REPUBLIC', '', 'links/cases/EMMANUEL NYARKO.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'DRAMANU VS.  THE REPUBLIC [1973] 2 GLR Act 378, that although Section 125 of Act 29 made it plain that it was not necessary for the prosecution in proving a stealing charge to establish ownership of the stolen property, where the prosecution had specifically stated in the charge sheet that ownership resided in some particular person, failure to establish such ownership could be FATAL to the prosecution’s case - COP VS. ISAAC ANTWI [1961] GLR @ 412 the Supreme Court held per Korsah CJ that “the law is well settled that there is no burden on the accused.  If there is any burden at all on the accused, it is not to prove anything, but to raise reasonable doubt. -', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-02-05', 'BCRA 261/2015'),
(993, 'ENOCK TORSU  VRS.  THE REPUBLIC', '', 'links/cases/ENOCK TORSU VS THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C.I. 49) defines record as follows:\r\n““record” includes the aggregate of papers relating to an appeal, the pleadings, evidence and judgment to be laid before the Court on the hearing of the appeal”.\r\n', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-02-29', 'BCRA 252/15'),
(994, 'ERIC HENRY KWOFIE  VRS THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/', 'No', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'of ROBERTSON V THE REPUBLIC [2015] 80 GM PER OWUSU (MS) JSC, the Supreme Court stated as follows:\r\n“Sentencing is discretionary and where the discretion has been judiciously exercised, an appellate Court has no just cause to interfere with the exercise of the discretion.  The principles upon which the Court would act on on appeal against sentence were that it would not interfere with a sentence on the mere ground that if members of the Court had been trying the appellant, they might have passed a somewhat different sentence.  The Court will interfere only when it was of the opinion that the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the circumstances of this case or that the sentence was wrong in principle.”\r\n - ', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-11-19', 'CR171/16'),
(995, 'ERIC HENRY KWOFIE  VRS THE REPUBLIC', '', 'links/cases/ERIC HENRY KWOFIE VRS THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', '', 'E. AMO YARTEY, J', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-07-19', 'CR171/16'),
(996, 'Queen Anne’s Bounty (Governors) v Pitt-Rivers', '', '../links/cases/Queen Anne.pdf', 'Yes', 'ATKINSON JJ', '1936', 'High Court', 'Queen Anne’s Bounty (Governors) v Pitt-Rivers\r\nEcclesiastical Law – Tithe rentcharge – Application for recovery – No notice of opposition\r\nby landlowners – Right of landowner to be heard – Tithe Act 1891 (c 8), ss 2(1), (7), 3(1) –\r\nTithe Rentcharge Recovery Rules, 1891–1933, rr 5, 8.\r\n\r\n', ' TALBOT ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-06', ' ECCLESIASTICAL'),
(997, 'R R Joly (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Pinhoe Nurseries Limited', '', '../links/cases/R R Joly.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Income Tax – Sched B – Occupation.\r\nM conveyed his interest in certain nurseries to the respondents, who went into possession on\r\n30 September 1931. In 1932 M was adjudicated bankrupt and the trustee in bankruptcy\r\nmoved to set aside all dispositions made by M, including the disposition to the respondents.\r\n', ' LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-03', 'BANKRUPTCY: TAXATION; Assessment'),
(998, 'R v Bishirgian', '', '../links/cases/R v Bishirgian.pdf', 'Yes', 'MACNAGHTEN AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'R v Bishirgian\r\nCriminal law – Prospectus – False in a material particular – Larceny Act 1861 (c 96) s 84.\r\nThe appellants were associated in the publication of a certain prospectus, which invited\r\nsubscriptions for shares in an old-established company of metal dealers and brokers.\r\n\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ,', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-18', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(999, 'R v Cambridgeshire County Council', '', '../links/cases/R v Cambridgeshire County Council.pdf', 'Yes', ' SWIFT AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'R v Cambridgeshire County Council\r\nLand Drainage – Rate – Precept – Estimated product of 2d rate – Land Drainage Act 1930\r\n(c 44), ss 20, 22(2).\r\nA catchment board issued a precept to a county council whose area was comprised in the\r\ncatchment area, demanding a sum calculated on the basis of 2d in the pound on the total of\r\nthe rateable value of the area concerned.\r\n\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-28', ' LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(1000, 'R v Gee. R v Bibby. R v Dunscombe', '', '../links/cases/R v Gee.pdf', 'Yes', ' DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'R v Gee. R v Bibby. R v Dunscombe\r\nCriminal Law – Preliminary hearing before justices – Depositions – Form prescribed by\r\nstatute imperative – Indictable Offences Act 1848 (c 42) s 17 – Administration of Justice\r\n(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (c 36) s 2(1), (2).\r\n\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-01', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(1001, 'R v Glamorganshire County Council, Ex parte Collier', '', '../links/cases/R v Glamorganshire County Council.pdf', 'Yes', ' DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'R v Glamorganshire County Council, Ex parte Collier\r\nLocal Government – Local authority – Minutes – Inspection – By agent of elector.\r\nThe applicant desired by an agent skilled in accounts to inspect certain matters involving\r\naccounts and finance in the minutes of a county council.\r\n\r\n\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-23', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(1002, 'R v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Bidwell', '', '../links/cases/R v Governor of Brixton Prison.pdf', 'Yes', ' BRANSON AND MACKINNON JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'R v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Bidwell\r\nExtradition – Fugitive offender – Warrant – Indorsement – By magistrate alone – Validity –\r\nFugitive Offenders Act 1881 (c 69), s 3.\r\nA person, for whose arrest warrants had been issued in Canada, was arrested in England and\r\ntaken before a magistrate at Bow Street Police Court to be dealt with under the Fugitive\r\nOffenders Act 1881.\r\n\r\n\r\n', ' SWIFT', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-08-13', 'INTERNATIONAL; International Criminal Law'),
(1003, 'R v Grant', '', '../links/cases/R v Grant.pdf', 'Yes', ' HUMPHREYS AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'R v Grant\r\nCriminal Law – Autrefois convict – Plea of guilty at police court – Subsequent decision of\r\nmagistrate to commit for trial – Criminal Justice Act 1925 (c 86), s 24(1).\r\nThe appellant was charged before a metropolitan police magistrate with larceny. He pleaded\r\nguilty.', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-13', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Procedure'),
(1004, 'R v Hutchison and Others, Ex parte McMahon', '', '../links/cases/R v Hutchison and Others.pdf', 'Yes', 'HUMPHREYS AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'R v Hutchison and Others, Ex parte McMahon\r\nContempt of court – Pending proceedings – Cinema films – Caption.\r\nDuring a procession in London, in which the King was riding, a revolver fell close to His\r\nMajesty’s horse.\r\n\r\n', 'SWIFT', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-29', ' ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Contempt of Court'),
(1005, 'R v Minister of Health, Ex parte Hampton Urban District Council', '', '../links/cases/R v Minister of Health.pdf', 'Yes', ' DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'R v Minister of Health, Ex parte Hampton Urban District Council\r\nLocal Government – Order adjusting boundaries – Letter adjourning decision on\r\namalgamation – Subsequent order for amalgamation of authorities – Whether second order\r\nbarred – Local Government Act 1929 (c 17), s 47(1).\r\n\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-14', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(1006, 'R v Salford Assessment Committee', '', '../links/cases/R v Salford Assessment Committee.pdf', 'Yes', ' DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'R v Salford Assessment Committee\r\nRates – Assessment committee – Clerk – Appointment of officer of county borough council –\r\nRating and Valuation Act 1925 (c 90), s 55.\r\n\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-06', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(1007, 'R v Sheridan', '', '../links/cases/R v Sheridan.pdf', 'Yes', 'HUMPHREYS AND HILBERY JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'R v Sheridan\r\nCriminal Law – Autrefois convict – Committal for trial after adjudication – No sentence –\r\nCriminal Justice Act 1925 (c 86), s 24.\r\nThe appellant was charged at a petty Sessional Court with an offence under the Debtors Act\r\n1869 s 13, and elected to be tried summarily.\r\n\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ,', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-29', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Procedure'),
(1008, 'R v The Minister of Health, Ex parte Villiers', '', '../links/cases/R v The Minister of Health.pdf', 'Yes', ' DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'R v The Minister of Health, Ex parte Villiers\r\nPublic Health – Housing – Appropriation of land – Open space – London Open Spaces Act\r\n1893 (c lxxi) – Housing Act 1925 (c 14), ss 65, 103.', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-31', 'HEALTH; Public health: HOUSING: LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(1009, 'R v Wandsworth Licensing Justices', '', '../links/cases/R v Wandsworth Licensing Justices.pdf', 'Yes', 'HUMPHREYS AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'R v Wandsworth Licensing Justices\r\nLicensing – Decision of annual general licensing meeting re-opened at adjourned meeting –\r\nFurther adjournment to meeting not within the month – Licensing (Consolidation) Act 1910\r\n(c 24), s 10 – Licensing Act 1921 (c 42), ss 1 and 2 – Licensing Rules, 1921, r 9.\r\n\r\n\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-19', 'LEISURE AND LICENSING'),
(1010, 'R W Crabtree & Sons Ltd v R Hoe & Company Ltd', '', '../links/cases/R W Crabtree.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'R W Crabtree & Sons Ltd v R Hoe & Company Ltd\r\nCourt: COURT OF APPEAL\r\nPatent – Action for infringement – Validity of patent – Ambiguity – Construction of claim –\r\n“Substantially as hereinbefore described” – Claim of a principle – Widening words.', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-30', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Patents'),
(1011, 'R & W Paul Ltd v Wheat Commission', '', '../links/cases/R.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD ATKIN, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MACMILLAN AND LORD WRIGHT MR', '1936', 'Appeal', 'R & W Paul Ltd v Wheat Commission\r\nAgriculture – Wheat – Quota payments – Middlings – Whether flour or offal – Arbitration –\r\nValidity of bye-law – Jurisdiction of court – Whether Wheat Commission a public authority –\r\nWheat Act 1932 (c 24), ss 3, 5, 20 – Public Authorities Protection Act 1893 (c 61), s 1.', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-22', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Arbitration: AGRICULTURE');
INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(1012, 'Radio Publicity (Universal) Limited v Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Radiodifusion and Wireless Publicity Limited (By original action) and Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Radiodifusion v Radio Publicity (Universal) Limited and Radio Publicity (London) Limited (By Counterclaim)', '', '../links/cases/Radio Publicity.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Radio Publicity (Universal) Limited v Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Radiodifusion\r\nand Wireless Publicity Limited (By original action) and Compagnie Luxembourgeoise\r\nde Radiodifusion v Radio Publicity (Universal) Limited and Radio Publicity (London)\r\nLimited (By Counterclaim)\r\nArbitration – Foreign arbitration – Agreement containing arbitration clause – Submission –\r\nAction upon agreement – Discontinuance – Counterclaim by other party – Stay – Arbitration\r\nClauses (Protocol) Act 1924 (c 39), s 1 – Arbitration (Foreign Awards) Act 1930 (c 15), s 8 –\r\nArbitration Act 1934 (c 14), s 14.\r\n\r\n\r\n', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-22', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Arbitration'),
(1013, 'Railway Assessment Authority v Southern Railway Company London County Council v Southern Railway Company', '', '../links/cases/Railway Assessment Authority v Southern Railway Company.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD THANKERTON, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MAUGHAM, LORD ROCHE', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Railway Assessment Authority v Southern Railway Company\r\nLondon County Council v Southern Railway Company\r\nRating – Railway hereditament – Principles of assessment – “Fair and just division of the net\r\nreceipts as between landlord and tenant” – Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act 1930 (c 24)\r\ns 4.\r\n\r\n', 'Lord(s): LORD HAILSHAM C', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-24', 'Categories: LOCAL GOVERNMENT: TRANSPORT; Rail'),
(1014, 'Raja Sarda Mahesh Prasad Singh v Badri Lal Sahu', '', '../links/cases/Raja Sarda Mahesh Prasad Singh v Badri Lal Sahu.pdf', 'Yes', 'SIR JOHN WALLIS AND SIR GEORGE RANKIN', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Raja Sarda Mahesh Prasad Singh v Badri Lal Sahu\r\nAppeals to Privy Council – Special leave – Right of appeal – Prerogative.\r\nThe (Indian) Scheduled Districts Act (XIV of 1874) gives the Court of the Collector power to\r\ntry and determine suits of every description, and under the Act the court is to be considered as\r\nthe District and principal court of original jurisdiction, and the Act gives a right of appeal\r\nfrom the court of the collector to the court of the Commissioner as the highest Court of\r\nAppeal.\r\n\r\n\r\n', 'LORD ALNESS', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-23', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Courts: CIVIL PROCEDURE: CONSTITUTIONAL; Crown'),
(1015, 'Ramsay v Gramophone Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Ramsay v Gramophone Co Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREEN AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Ramsay v Gramophone Co Ltd\r\nMaster and Servant – Workmen’s compensation – Review of weekly payments – Change of\r\ncircumstances – Workmen’s Compensation Act 1925 (c 42), s 11.\r\n\r\n\r\n', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-07', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: HEALTH; Health and safety at work'),
(1016, 'Re A Debtor (No 994 of 1935), The Debtor v The Official Receiver', '', '../links/cases/Re A Debtor.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER LJ AND CHARLES J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Re A Debtor (No 994 of 1935), The Debtor v The Official Receiver\r\nBankruptcy – Rescission of receiving order – Arrangement with creditors – Unequal\r\ntreatment of creditors – Discretion.\r\n\r\n\r\n', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-27', 'BANKRUPTCY'),
(1017, 'Re A Reference Under Government of Ireland Act 1920 s 51', '', '../links/cases/Re A Reference Under Government of Ireland Act 1920 s.pdf', 'Yes', ' LORD THANKERTON, LORD MAUGHAM, SIR GEORGE LOWNDES, SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Re A Reference Under Government of Ireland Act 1920 s 51\r\nPrivy Council – Reference – Taxation – Powers of Government of Northern Ireland – Tax\r\nsubstantially the same as income tax – Government of Ireland Act 1920 (c 67) s 21 – Finance\r\nAct (Northern Ireland) 1934 s 3.\r\n\r\n\r\n', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-27', 'CONSTITUTIONAL; Governments: TAXATION; Other Taxation'),
(1018, 'Re Alfred Priestman & Co (1929) Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Re Alfred Priestman.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Re Alfred Priestman & Co (1929) Ltd\r\nCompanies – Liquidation – Application to court to determine any question – Debenture\r\nholder – Creditor – Companies Act 1929 (c 23), s 252.\r\n\r\n', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-20', 'COMPANY; Insolvency, Shareholders'),
(1019, 'Re Anchor Line (Henderson Brothers) Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Re Anchor Line.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Re Anchor Line (Henderson Brothers) Ltd\r\nSale of Goods – Agreement giving use subject to payment of interest and depreciation –\r\nWhether sale with provision for instalments or agreement to sell – Passing of property.\r\n\r\n\r\n', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-30', ' SALE OF GOODS'),
(1020, 'Re Andrew, Official Receiver, v Standard Range and Foundry Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Re Andrew.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Re Andrew, Official Receiver, v Standard Range and Foundry Co Ltd\r\nBankruptcy – Execution – “Benefit of execution” – Bankruptcy Act 1914 (c 59), s 40.\r\nA judgment creditor levied execution on the judgment debtor, and the sheriff withdrew on\r\ncondition that the debtor paid a sum on account of the debt and undertook to pay the rest by\r\ninstalments.\r\n', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-11', 'BANKRUPTCY'),
(1021, 'Re Andrews, Ex parte The Official Receiver (Trustee) v Standard Range and Foundry Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Re Andrew1.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER LJJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Re Andrews, Ex parte The Official Receiver (Trustee) v Standard Range and Foundry Co Ltd\r\nBankruptcy – Case stated by county court judge – Decision of High Court – Appeal to Court\r\nof Appeal – Bankruptcy Act 1914 (c 59), s 108(2).\r\n\r\n\r\n', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-19', 'Categories: BANKRUPTCY'),
(1022, 'Re Andrews, Ex parte The Official Receiver (Trustee) v Standard Range and Foundry Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Re Andrews.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Re Andrews, Ex parte The Official Receiver (Trustee) v Standard Range and Foundry Co Ltd\r\nBankruptcy – Execution – Withdrawal of sheriff upon agreement to pay instalments –\r\nInstalments paid in part – Debtor filing own petition – Receiving order – Claim by trustee to\r\ninstalments paid – Benefit of execution – Bankruptcy Act (c 59), 1914, s 40.\r\n', 'FARWELL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-18', 'BANKRUPTCY'),
(1023, 'Re Aynek Syndicate Limited', '', '../links/cases/Re Aynek Syndicate Limited.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Re Aynek Syndicate Limited\r\nCompanies – Winding up – Proof – Rejection – Appeal.\r\nA claim was made against a company in liquidation for damages.\r\n', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-26', 'COMPANY; Insolvency'),
(1024, 'Re Bracey, Hull v Johns', '', '../links/cases/Re Bracey.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Re Bracey, Hull v Johns\r\nExecutors – Testator’s business carried on – Creditors’ right to interest – Rate of interest –\r\nTime from which interest runs – RSC Ord 55, rr 62, 63.\r\n\r\n', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-27', 'SUCCESSION; Administration of Estates'),
(1025, 'Re Brand Estates Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Re Brand Estates Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Re Brand Estates Ltd\r\nContract – Existence of contract – Discretion freeing one party from obligation.\r\nCertain builders requested a firm of publishers to publish a builders’ guide in connection with\r\ntheir estate, and by the terms of documents signed by both parties it was agreed that the\r\npublishers should prepare and publish the guide free of charge to the builders.\r\n\r\n', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-29', 'CONTRACT'),
(1026, 'Re Bulmer, Ex parte Greaves v Commissioners of Inland Revenue', '', '../links/cases/Re Bulme1.pdf', 'Yes', 'FARWELL JJ', '1936', 'High Court', 'Re Bulmer, Ex parte Greaves v Commissioners of Inland Revenue\r\nBankruptcy – Committee of inspection – Members – Limited company – Proxy – Fiduciary\r\nposition.\r\nG had attended the meetings of a bankrupt’s committee of inspection as the holder of a\r\ngeneral proxy from a limited company, one of the bankrupt’s creditors, which had been\r\nappointed a member of the committee.', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-11-12', 'BANKRUPTCY'),
(1027, 'Re Bulmer, The Trustee and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v National Provincial Bank Limited', '', '../links/cases/Re Bulmer.pdf', 'Yes', ' FARWELL JJ', '1936', 'High Court', 'Re Bulmer, The Trustee and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v National Provincial Bank Limited\r\nPractice – Bankruptcy – Appeal – Secured creditor – Election by trustee – Application for\r\nextension of time for exercise of election – Refusal – Order as to costs – Time for appeal –\r\nBankruptcy Rules 1915, r 130.\r\n', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-11-02', ' CIVIL PROCEDURE: BANKRUPTCY'),
(1028, 'Re Chartered Surveyors’ Benevolent Fund (Incorporated)', '', 'links/cases/Re Chartered Surveyors.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Companies – Benevolent association – Amalgamation with another association – Extension of objects', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-25', 'COMPANY; Incorporation: PROFESSIONS; Surveyors'),
(1029, 'Re Chetwynd’s Estate, Dunn, Trust Ltd v Brown', '', 'links/cases/Re Chetwynd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'Supreme', 'Contract – Constructive contract – Money paid – Implied request – Discharge of promissory note – Note not enforceable.', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-22', 'CONTRACT '),
(1030, 'Re Clark Son & Morland Ltd’s Trade Mark', '', 'links/cases/Re Clark Son.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Trade Marks  Rectification of register  Geographical word  dated to dstnush  astonurys  Trade Marks Acts 1905 to 1919, s 9(5). ', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-14', ''),
(1031, 'Re Cohen’s Will Trusts, Cullen v Westminster Bank Limited', '', 'links/cases/Re Cohen.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Will – Absolute gift – Effect of subsequent words – “Subject to the provisions and directions hereinafter contained.” ', 'LUXMOORE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-11', 'SUCCESSION; Gifts, Wills'),
(1032, 'Re Coleman’s Will Trusts, the Public Trustee v Colema', '', 'links/cases/Re Coleman.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Perpetuities – Will – Residue given upon trust for sale – Settled share – Discretionary trust for any widow donee may leave – Void limitation – Effect upon subsequent limitation – Alternative independent limitation. ', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-08', 'SUCCESSION; Family Provision'),
(1033, 'Re Crocker', '', 'links/cases/Re Crocker.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1937', 'High Court', 'Solicitors – Production of documents – Document relating to action brought in name of applicant – Agreement giving insurance company absolute conduct and control of proceedings', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1937-05-27', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: PROFESSIONS; Lawyers        '),
(1034, 'Re Cuthbert, Ex parte Monnoyer British Construction Co Ltd (now Monnobar British Construction Co Ltd), by Joseph Stephenson its Liquidator v The Trustee', '', 'links/cases/Re Cuthbert.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Bankruptcy – Proof – Agreement not to prove on third party undertaking to pay debt – Bankruptcy of third party', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-24', 'BANKRUPTCY '),
(1035, 'Re Eastcheap Alimentary Products Ltd', '', 'links/cases/Re Eastcheap Alimentary Products Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1963', 'High Court', 'Execution – Rent – Provision for payment of – Landlord and Tenant Act 1709 (c 18), s 1. \r\nPractice – Motion to discharge order made in chambers – Time for.', 'CROSSMAN J    ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '0000-00-00', 'LANDLORD AND TENANT; Rent: CIVIL PROCEDURE'),
(1036, 'Re Fenwick, Fenwick v Stewart ', '', 'links/cases/Re Fenwick.pdf', 'Yes', '', '2016', 'High Court', 'Estate and other Death Duties – Legacy duty – Incidence of duty – Settled legacy at discretion of trustees – Contingent legacy. \r\nExecutors and Administrators – Apportionment between capital or income – Power to trustees to determine in “cases of doubt.” ', 'FARWELL J   ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '2016-06-16', 'SUCCESSION; Administration of Estates: TAXATION; Estate Duty   '),
(1037, 'Re Fletcher’s Settlement Trusts, Medley v Fletcher ', '', 'links/cases/Re Fletcher.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Equity – Election – Two claims under marriage settlement – One claim statute-barred but satisfied by legacy in will – Other claim ignored by will. ', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-06', ' EQUITY: SUCCESSION; Wills'),
(1038, 'Re Gatti’s Voluntary Settlement Trusts, De Ville v Gatti ', '', 'links/cases/Re Gatti.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Trusts – Settlement – Absolute gift – Restrictions on enjoyment – Failure of trusts – Destination of trust fund.', 'FARWELL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-10', 'Trusts '),
(1039, 'Re Gozzett, Ex parte Messenger & Co Ltd v The Trustee ', '', 'links/cases/Re Gozzett, Ex parte Messenger & Co Ltd v The Trustee.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, ROMER AND GREENE LJJ  ', '1933', 'Appeal', 'Bankruptcy – Duty of trustee as officer of the Court – Agreement for loan intended to pay particular creditor – Execution of improvement by creditor on land of bankrupt – Land sold at enhanced price by reason of improvements – Claim by creditor to be paid out of purchase money. ', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '0000-00-00', 'BANKRUPTCY'),
(1040, 'Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd ', '', 'links/cases/Re Harrods.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Companies – Practice – Reduction of capital – Subsequent increase, subdivision and consolidation of capital – Form of minute for registration – Companies Act 1929 (c 23), s 58.', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-06', 'COMPANY; Shares'),
(1041, 'Re Hepworth, Rastall v Hepworth', '', 'links/cases/Re Hepworth.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Wills – Construction – Gift to “child” – Legitimated person – “Disposition” – Legitimacy Act 1926 (c 60), ss 3(1), 11.', 'FARWELL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-09', 'SUCCESSION; Family Provision, Gift'),
(1042, 'Re Hooper, Hooper v Carpenter ', '', 'links/cases/Re Hooper.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, ROMER AND GREENE LJJ  ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Will – Construction – “Heir-at-law” – Construction in popular sense. ', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-17', 'SUCCESSION; Wills '),
(1043, 'Re Horder, Ex parte The Trustee', '', 'links/cases/Re Horder.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Bankruptcy – Procedure – Recovery of debt incurred by bankrupt on behalf of another – Bankruptcy Act 1914 (c 59) s 105. ', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-13', 'BANKRUPTCY'),
(1044, 'Re Hulton, Midland Bank Executor and Trustee Co Ltd v Thompson', '', 'links/cases/Re Hulton.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Trustee – Bank – Express charging clause – Income fee – Incidence. ', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-07', 'BANKING AND FINANCE: SUCCESSION; Administration of Estates '),
(1045, 'Re Imperial Chemical Industries Limited ', '', 'links/cases/Re Imperial Chemical Industries Limited.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Companies – Share register – Name entered without sufficient cause – Rectification – Companies Act 1929 (c 23), s 100.', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-12', 'COMPANY; Shares'),
(1046, 'Re J & P Coats Ltd’s Application', '', 'links/cases/Re J.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, SLESSER AND ROMER LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Trade Marks – Application to register – Distinctive word – “Sheen” – Machine twist – Registrar consulting Manchester Merchandise Marks Committee after hearing completed – Trade Marks Acts 1905 to 1919, ss 9(5), 64(14). ', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-26', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Trade Marks '),
(1047, 'Re Jefferies, Finch v Martin ', '', 'links/cases/Re Jefferies.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Perpetuities – Accumulations – Accumulation of excess income during life of annuitant – Residue to be given to charities – Charities to be selected after death of annuitant by then trustees – Destination of excess income accruing after twenty-one years from testator’s death – Accumulations Act 1800 (c 98) – Law of Property Act 1925 (c 20) s 164', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-20', 'CHARITIES: SUCCESSION; Gifts  '),
(1048, 'Re Lawton, Gartside v Attorney-General ', '', 'links/cases/Re Lawton.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Charities – Charitable trust – Disclaimer by trustees – Particular trustees not of the essence of the trust– Cy près.', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-29', 'CHARITIES: TRUSTS'),
(1049, 'Re Leighton’s Conveyance; Re The Land Registration Act 1925', '', 'links/cases/Re Leighton.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Real property – Registered land – Rectification of register – Entry procured by fraud – Land Registration Act 1925 (c 21), s 82(1)(d).', 'LUXMOORE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-25', 'LAND; Land Registration'),
(1050, 'Re Liddell-Grainger’s Will Trusts, Dormer v Liddell-Grainger ', '', 'links/cases/Re Liddel1.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Conflict of Laws – Domicil – English domicil of origin – Residence in Scotland – Intention to continue Scottish residence – Declaration in will – “I have not relinquished and do not intend to relinquish my English residence.”', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-14', 'CONFLICT OF LAWS  '),
(1051, 'Re Liddell’s Settlement Trusts, Liddell v Liddell ', '', 'links/cases/Re Liddel1.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER, ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Infants – Wards of court – Order to bring wards within jurisdiction – Jurisdiction of court – Writ of sequestration – Enforcing order against British subject domiciled in England resident abroad.', 'SLESSER LJJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-25', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Courts: FAMILY; Children   '),
(1052, 'Re London (Hammersmith) Housing Order ', '', 'links/cases/Re London.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Public Health – Housing – Public local inquiry – Statement of counsel not supported by evidence – Future intentions of owners.', 'SWIFT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-08', 'HEALTH; Public Health: HOUSING '),
(1053, 'Re Lunacy Act 1890. Re an Indented Action by Frost ', '', 'links/cases/Re Lunacy Act 1890.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREER AND GREENE LJJ ', '1936', 'High Court', 'Lunatics – Wrongful detention – Application for leave to bring action – Mental Treatment Act 1930 (c 23), s 16(2). ', 'GREER LJJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-07', 'HEALTH; Mental health: LOCAL GOVERNMENT   '),
(1054, 'Re Macnamara, deceased, Macnamara v Macnamara', '', 'links/cases/Re Macnamara.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Settlements – Capital and income – Compensation for malicious damage.', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-12', 'CONFLICT OF LAWS: LAND; Other Land '),
(1055, 'Re Mainwaring’s Settlement Trusts, Mainwaring’s Trustee in Bankruptcy v Verden', '', 'links/cases/Re Mainwaring.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Mortgage – Two properties mortgaged together – Sale of one subject to the mortgage – Debt discharged by property retained – Exoneration or contribution. ', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-11-03', 'LAND; Mortgages '),
(1056, 'Re Margolin’s Registered Design ', '', 'links/cases/Re Margolin.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'High Court', 'Practice – Costs – Infringement of design – Defence of invalidity – Motion to expunge intended as auxiliary to defence – Action discontinued – Motion withdrawn – Independent motion', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-29', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE'),
(1057, 'Re Martin’s Patents', '', 'links/cases/Re Martin.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Patents – Petition for revocation – Particulars of prior user – Earliest and latest dates – RSC Ord 53(a), r 16.', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-25', ' INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Patents '),
(1058, 'Re Parent Trust & Finance Company Ltd', '', 'links/cases/Re Parent Trust.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Estoppel – Estoppel by deed – Effect of recital. \r\nGuarantee – Guarantee of secured loan – Whether security for loan a condition precedent – Usual clause for guarantors to be liable as principal debtors.', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-28', 'BANKING AND FINANCE: EQUITY '),
(1059, 'Re Patten, Official Receiver v Patten ', '', 'links/cases/Re Patten.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Executors – Retainer – Loans to husband for purposes of business – Bankruptcy Act 1914 (c 59), ss 36, 130(8), (9) – Administration of Estates Act 1925 (c 23), s 34(1), sched I. ', 'LUXMOORE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-14', ' BANKRUPTCY: SUCCESSION; Administration of Estates'),
(1060, 'Re Pavyer, Geo Brown, Son and Vardy v The Trustee', '', 'links/cases/Re Pavyer.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Bankruptcy – Proof – Long delay – Notice of final dividend – Evidence of posting – Extension of time – Discretion – Costs – Bankruptcy Act 1914 (c 59) s 67. ', 'FARWELL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-16', 'BANKRUPTCY'),
(1061, 'Re Pollock, Official Receiver v J N Haslip, A S Jackson, S M Haslip and A H Jackson (Carrying on Business as Wilkinson, Bowen, Haslip and Jackson) ', '', 'links/cases/Re Pollock.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Bankruptcy – Title of trustee – Payments to debtor’s solicitor to prosecute appeal against receiving order. ', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-19', 'BFS/307/2014'),
(1062, 'Re R Gertzenstein Ltd ', '', 'links/cases/Re R Gertzenstein Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Companies – Winding up – Joint liquidators – Solicitor liquidator – Acting on behalf of liquidators in litigious proceedings – Costs – Profit costs – Companies (Winding-up) Rules 1929, r 158. ', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-28', 'COMPANY; Insolvency '),
(1063, 'Re Ray’s Will Trusts, Public Trustee v Barry', '', 'links/cases/Re Ray.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Will – Construction – Gift to abbess of convent at the time of the death of testatrix – “Absolutely” – Attestation by members of the community – Wills Act 1837 (c 26) s 15', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-29', 'SUCCESSION; Wills'),
(1064, 'Re Ricarde-Seaver’s Will Trusts, Midland Bank Executor and Trustee Company Ltd v Sandbrook ', '', 'links/cases/Re Ricarde.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Will – Contingent interest carrying intermediate income – No payment to be made to beneficiary – Beneficiary entitled to payment under statute – Trustee Act 1925 (c 19) s 31(1)(ii)', 'LUXMOORE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-12', 'SUCCESSION; Wills'),
(1065, 'Re Riddell, Public Trustee v Riddell', '', 'links/cases/Re Riddell.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Will – Gift of freehold property – Purchased during last illness of testator – Balance of purchase money advanced by solicitor – Deeds handed to solicitor – Charge – Gift cum onere – Administration of Estates Act 1925 (c 23), s 35.', 'FARWELL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-09', 'SUCCESSION; Gifts, Wills'),
(1066, 'Re Schnapper, Westminster Bank Ltd v Schnapper', '', 'links/cases/Re Schnapper.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Executors – Legacy – Voluntary undertaking to pay money – Will directing undertaking to be fulfilled – Money payable in foreign country and in foreign currency.', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-20', 'BANKING AND FINANCE: SUCCESSION; Administration of Estates '),
(1067, 'Re Senior, Senior v Wood', '', 'links/cases/Re Senior.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Infants – Maintenance – Expenditure of private income by guardian – Statutory power of maintenance – Reimbursement of guardian – Conveyancing Act 1881 (c 41), s 43', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-15', 'FAMILY; Ancillary Finance and Property: TRUSTS'),
(1068, 'Re Sharman and Meade’s Contract ', '', 'links/cases/Re Sharman and Meade.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Sale of Land – Conveyance – Description of parcels – Right of purchaser to insist on plan. ', 'FARWELL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-16', 'LAND; Sale of Land'),
(1069, 'Re Skeats, Thain v Gibbs', '', 'links/cases/Re Skeats.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Will – Construction – Appointment of executor – No disposition of beneficial interest in estate – Executors Act 1830 (c 40) – Administration of Estates Act 1925 (c 23), ss 46, 49.', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-06', 'SUCCESSION; Administration of Estates, Wills  '),
(1070, 'Re Smith’s Will Trusts, Smith v Melville', '', 'links/cases/Re Smith.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Settlements – Tenant for life and remainderman – Settled share of residue – Ordinary and preference shares appropriated thereto – Payment of past preference dividend by transfer of ordinary shares – Capital or income. ', 'FARWELL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-07', 'COMPANY; Shares: SUCCESSION; Administration of Estates'),
(1071, 'Re Spencer Flats Ltd ', '', 'links/cases/Re Spencer Flats Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Covenants – Restrictive covenants – Discharge and modification – Application for declaration that covenants unenforceable – Appeal from official arbitrator – Law of Property Act 1925, (c 20) s 84. ', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-27', 'LAND; Property Rights'),
(1072, 'Re Spollon and Long’s Contract ', '', 'links/cases/Re Spollon and Long.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Sale of Land – Open contract – Insufficiently stamped deed – Statutory declaration – Declaration contradicting prima facie title – Deed not shown by abstract to be stamped – Production by vendor. ', 'LUXMOORE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-28', 'LAND; Sale of Land'),
(1073, 'Re Stillwell, Stillwell v Stillwell ', '', 'links/cases/Re Stillwell.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Lunatics – Surrender of property under order of the court – War savings certificates – Nomination – Succession to fund in court on death of lunatic – Lunacy Act 1890 (c 37), s 123(1).', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-25', ' HEALTH;  Mental health'),
(1074, 'Re Symm’s Will Trusts, Public Trustee v Shaw ', '', 'links/cases/Re Symm.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Powers – Survivorship of power – Construction – Will – Power to trustees or assigns – Public Trustee. \r\nPerpetuities – Will – Power to distribute residue – Discretion of trustees – Among such of the descendants of testator’s brothers and sisters in such shares and at such proper times as the trustees should determine', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-22', 'TRUSTS: SUCCESSION; Wills '),
(1075, 'Re Taxation of Costs, Re a Solicitor ', '', 'links/cases/Re Taxation of Costs.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER, GREEN AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Solicitors – Costs – Taxation – Counsel’s fees not paid before delivery of bill – Costs disallowed for want of retainer – Solicitors Act 1932 (c 37), ss 65(1), 81(1) – RSC Ord 65, r 27, reg 29(a). ', 'SLESSER LJJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-25', 'PROFESSIONS; Lawyers'),
(1076, 'Re Tegg, Public Trustee v Bryant ', '', 'links/cases/Re Tegg.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Will – Condition – Condition in terrorem – “Conform to the Established Church of England” – “Go to or be sent to any Roman Catholic school” – Validity.', 'FARWELL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-12', 'SUCCESSION; Wills'),
(1077, 'Re The Debtors (No 836 of 1935), Petitioning Creditor v The Debtors ', '', 'links/cases/Re The Debtors.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD WRIGHT MR, ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Bankruptcy – Foreign debtor carrying on business abroad and in England by agent – Assignment for benefit of creditors operating according to foreign law. ', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-03', 'BANKRUPTCY'),
(1078, 'Re The Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act 1930; Application by the Railway Assessment Authority and others', '', 'links/cases/Re The Railways.pdf', 'Yes', ' MACKINNON J, SIR FRANCIS TAYLOR KC AND SIR FRANCIS DUNNELL  ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Railways – Railway and Canal Commission – Review of order – Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1888 (c 25) s 18(2) – Rules of Procedure, 1924, r 69. ', ' MACKINNON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-05', 'TRANSPORT; Rail'),
(1079, 'Re Thompson, Public Trustee v Husband', '', '../links/cases/Re Thompson.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Re Thompson, Public Trustee v Husband\r\nExecutors – Administration – Liability of real estate for payment of legacies – Administration\r\nof Estates Act 1925 (c 23) s 34(3) Sched 1 Part II paras 1, 2.\r\n', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-06', 'SUCCESSION; Administration of Estates'),
(1080, 'Re Thornber, Crabtree v Thornber', '', '../links/cases/Re Thornber.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Re Thornber, Crabtree v Thornber\r\nWill – Partial intestacy – Annuities charged on corpus – Accumulation of income of residue –\r\nBequest of capital and income to children – No issue – Administration of Estates Act 1925\r\n(c 23), s 49.\r\n', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-27', 'SUCCESSION; Administration of Estates'),
(1081, 'Re Turner’s Will Trusts, District Bank Ltd v Turner and others', '', '../links/cases/Re Turner.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Re Turner’s Will Trusts, District Bank Ltd v Turner and others\r\nWill – Contingent interest – No payment to be made to beneficiary until a later age than 21 –\r\nStatutory provision for payment to beneficiary – Whether subject to contrary direction in will\r\n– Trustee Act 1925, (c 19) ss 31, 69(2).\r\n', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-30', 'SUCCESSION; Wills: TRUSTS'),
(1082, 'Re Walsh decd, Public Trustee v Walsh', '', '../links/cases/Re Walsh decd.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER AND GREEN LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', '.Re Walsh decd, Public Trustee v Walsh\r\nWill – Distribution of property according to Statutes of Distribution as on intestacy –\r\nSettlement and will made before, and testatrix’s death after, 1 January 1926 – Administration\r\nof Estates Act 1925 (c 23) s 50(2) – Contrary intention.\r\n', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-04', 'SUCCESSION; Administration of Estates'),
(1083, 'Re Ward, Ringland v Ward', '', '../links/cases/Re Ward.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Re Ward, Ringland v Ward\r\nWill – Construction – Trust of dividends, interest and annual income from certain shares –\r\nCapital distribution by company in respect of shares – Destination of sum distributed.\r\n', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-29', 'SUCCESSION; Wills'),
(1084, 'Re Watt’s Will Trusts, Watt v Watt', '', '../links/cases/Re Watt.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Re Watt’s Will Trusts, Watt v Watt\r\nPerpetuities – Accumulations – Statutory periods – Accumulation during minorities –\r\nExcessive accumulation – Law of Property Act 1925 (c 20), s 164.\r\n', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-31', 'SUCCESSION; Gifts: TRUSTS'),
(1085, 'Re West of England Road Metal Company Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Re West of England Road Metal Company Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Re West of England Road Metal Company Ltd\r\nMines and Minerals – Quarry – Grant of rights over adjoining fields – Reasonable offer and\r\nrefusal – Extent of jurisdiction – Mines (Working Facilities and Support) 1923 (c 20), ss 1, 3,\r\n6, 9.\r\n', ' MACKINNON J, SIR FRANCIS TAYLOR AND SIR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-24', 'ENVIRONMENTAL: INDUSTRY: TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING'),
(1086, 'Re White-Popham Settled Estates', '', '../links/cases/Re White.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Re White-Popham Settled Estates\r\nSettlements – Settled land – Sale or mortgage – To raise money for payment of debts of\r\ntenant for life – Repayment secured by life policy – Jurisdiction of court to sanction – Settled\r\nLand Act 1925 (c 19), s 64.\r\n', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-30', 'LAND; Land Tenure: SUCCESSION; Administration of Estates:TRUSTS'),
(1087, 'Re Williams, Williams v Templeton', '', '../links/cases/Re Williams.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER AND GREEN LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Re Williams, Williams v Templeton\r\nWill – Construction – Direction to set aside fund – To produce annuity without deduction of\r\ntax.\r\n', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-05', 'SUCCESSION; Wills'),
(1088, 'Recenia R Shaerf Ltd v Smyth (Trading as G O Smyth & Co)', '', '../links/cases/Recenia R Shaerf Ltd v Smyth.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Recenia R Shaerf Ltd v Smyth (Trading as G O Smyth & Co)\r\nPractice – Debt – Payment into court of part of claim in full satisfaction with admission of\r\nliability – Application to sign final judgment for whole amount – Possible defence disclosed\r\nin plaintiff’s affidavit – RSC Ord 14, r 4.', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-27', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: SALE OF GOODS'),
(1089, 'Recknell, White v Carter', '', '../links/cases/Recknell.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Recknell, White v Carter\r\nWill – Construction – “All other money invested or in the London and County Bank” –\r\nResiduary gift.\r\n', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-23', 'SUCCESSION; Wills'),
(1090, 'Reed v Cattermole (Inspector of Taxes)', '', '../links/cases/Reed v Cattermole.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Reed v Cattermole (Inspector of Taxes)\r\nIncome Tax – Income under sched E – Rent-free occupation of house – Minister of religion.\r\nThe appellant, a minister of the Methodist Church, was required by the constitution of that\r\nchurch to reside in the house provided for him by the circuit.\r\n', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-26', 'TAXATION; Assessment, Emoluments from office or employment'),
(1091, 'Rellie v Pyke', '', '../links/cases/Rellie v Pyke.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Rellie v Pyke\r\nSpecific performance – Assignment of lease – Default by assignor to repair – Entry into\r\npossession by assignee.\r\n', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-25', 'LANDLORD AND TENANT; Leases'),
(1092, 'Renouf v Attorney-General for Jersey', '', '../links/cases/Renouf v Attorney.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD THANKERTON, LORD MAUGHAM, SIR GEORGE LOWNDES, SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Renouf v Attorney-General for Jersey\r\nAppeal to Privy Council – Criminal matter – Right of appeal – Appeal by special leave –\r\nGrounds for allowing appeal.', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-06', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Procedure'),
(1093, 'Rex v Frederick Roberts', '', '../links/cases/Rex v Frederick Roberts.pdf', 'Yes', 'MACNAGHTEN AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Rex v Frederick Roberts\r\nCriminal Law – Evidence – Prisoners charged on same indictment with different offences –\r\nEvidence by one accused against the other – Cross-examination of first accused on previous\r\nconviction – Admissibility – Criminal Evidence Act 1898 (c 36) s 1(f)(iii).\r\n\r\n', 'TALBOT', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-27', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Evidence'),
(1094, 'Rex v Henry William Wicks', '', '../links/cases/Rex v Henry William Wicks.pdf', 'Yes', 'MACNAGHTEN AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Rex v Henry William Wicks\r\nCriminal law – Criminal libel – Onus of proof – Likelihood of breach of peace – Privilege –\r\nLibel Act 1843 (c 96) ss 4, 5.\r\n\r\n', 'TALBOT', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-17', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(1095, 'Rhokana Corporation Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners', '', '../links/cases/Rhokana Corporation Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Rhokana Corporation Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners\r\nIncome Tax – Interest on debentures – Payable in foreign currency at fixed rate of exchange –\r\nDeduction of income tax – Income Tax Act 1918 (c 40), All Schedules Rules, r 21.', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-28', 'TAXATION; Corporation Tax, Deduction in computing profits'),
(1096, 'Ritz Cleaners Ltd v West Middlesex Assessment Committee', '', '../links/cases/Ritz Cleaners Ltd v West Middlesex Assessment Committee.pdf', 'Yes', 'DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Ritz Cleaners Ltd v West Middlesex Assessment Committee\r\nRates and Rating – Industrial hereditament – Partly used as retail shop – Cleaners and dyers –\r\nNot more than one-third of articles brought by Customers themselves – Rating and Valuation\r\n(Apportionment) Act 1928, (c 44), s 3.', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-15', ' LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(1097, 'Robinson Brothers (Brewers) Ltd v Assessment Committee for Houghton and Chester-Le-Street Assessment Area', '', '../links/cases/Robinson Brothers.pdf', 'Yes', 'HUMPHREYS AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Robinson Brothers (Brewers) Ltd v Assessment Committee for Houghton and Chester-Le-Street Assessment Area\r\nRates – Assessment – Licensed property – “Tied house”.\r\nA firm of brewers following the usual custom at the present time, instead of letting a public\r\nhouse to a tenant, put a manager in charge of it.\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-01', 'LEISURE AND LICENSING: LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(1098, 'Roden v Brett', '', '../links/cases/Roden v Brett.pdf', 'Yes', 'DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Roden v Brett\r\nGaming – Gaming-house – Person found on premises – Innocent purpose – Conviction –\r\nUnlawful Games Act 1541 (33 Hen 8, c 9) s 9.\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-30', 'LEISURE AND LICENSING'),
(1099, 'Rofe v Kevorkian', '', '', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Rofe v Kevorkian\r\nPractice – Interrogatories – Interrogatories to executors – Matters believed by deceased –\r\nMatters of expert opinion – RSC Ord 31, r 2.\r\n\r\n', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-27', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: CONTRACT'),
(1100, 'Rofe v Kevorkian', '', '../links/cases/Rofe v Kevorkian.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Rofe v Kevorkian\r\nPractice – Interrogatories – Interrogatories to executors – Matters believed by deceased –\r\nMatters of expert opinion – RSC Ord 31, r 2.\r\n', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-27', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: CONTRACT'),
(1101, 'Rowell v Pratt', '', '../links/cases/Rowell v Pratt.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Rowell v Pratt\r\nEvidence – Privileged document – Farmer’s return to Potato Marketing Board – Agricultural\r\nMarketing Act 1931 (c 42) s 17.\r\n', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-15', 'AGRICULTURE: CIVIL PROCEDURE'),
(1102, 'Rozendo Ayres Ribeiro v Olivia Da Ritta Siqueira E Facho', '', '../links/cases/Rozendo Ayres Ribeiro v Olivia Da Ritta Siqueira E Facho.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD MAUGHAM AND SIR SIDNEY ROWLATT', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Rozendo Ayres Ribeiro v Olivia Da Ritta Siqueira E Facho\r\nPrivy Council – Appeal – Order for an account – No formal decree – Account taken – Report\r\nconfirmed – Decree drawn up and ante-dated, according to date of judgment.', 'LORD ALNESS', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-14', 'CIVIL PROCEDURES: COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries:TRUSTS'),
(1103, 'Russian and English Bank (in Liquidation) and Another v Baring Brothers', '', '../links/cases/Russian and English Bank.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD ATKIN, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MACMILLAN, LORD MAUGHAM', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Russian and English Bank (in Liquidation) and Another v Baring Brothers\r\nCompanies – Russian Bank with London branch – Bank dissolved by Russian law –\r\nCompulsory winding up of London branch as unregistered company – Action by liquidator\r\non behalf of company – Whether company re-created by winding up order – Companies Act\r\n1929 (c 23) ss 190, 191(1), 337, 338(1)(d), 342.\r\n', 'LORD BLANESBURGH', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-12', 'BANKING AND FINANCE: COMPANY; Insolvency'),
(1104, 'Sakariyawo Oshodi, since deceased (now represented by Disu Akinyemi Oshodi) v Brimah Balogun and The Scottish Nigerian Mortgage and Trust Company Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Sakariyawo Oshodi.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD MAUGHAM AND LORD ROCHE', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Sakariyawo Oshodi, since deceased (now represented by Disu Akinyemi Oshodi) v Brimah Balogun and The Scottish Nigerian Mortgage and Trust Company Ltd\r\nPrivy Council – Nigeria – Native lands in Lagos – Alienation of land, part of a compound, by\r\nheadman without the consent of the chief and family – Acquiescence of family by laches.\r\n\r\n', 'LORD BLANESBURGH', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-16', 'COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries: LAND; Property Rights'),
(1105, 'Salt v Power Plant Company Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Salt v Power Plant Company Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Salt v Power Plant Company Ltd\r\nMaster and Servant – Wrongful dismissal – Contract of employment – Interpretation –\r\n“Permanent.”\r\nThe plaintiff was employed by the defendant company upon the terms of a letter, dated 24\r\nDecember 1925, which provided that the engagement would be for a minimum of 3 years,\r\nsubject to the defendants’ right to cancel the agreement in case of wilful default.\r\n', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-27', 'EMPLOYMENT; Wrongful dismissal; Contract of service'),
(1106, 'Schlarb v London & North Eastern Railway Co', '', '../links/cases/Schlarb v London.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Schlarb v London & North Eastern Railway Co\r\nCarriers – Negligence – Railway – Fall from platform – Edge marked by white lines – Fog.\r\nOn a very foggy night the plaintiff, having descended the staircase of a railway station, was\r\nproceeding cautiously forward on the platform, when she fell over the edge.\r\n', 'ATKINSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-29', 'TORTS; Negligence: TRANSPORT; Rail'),
(1107, 'Seneviratne v R', '', '../links/cases/Seneviratne v R.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD ROCHE, SIR GEORGE RANKIN', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Seneviratne v R\r\nPrivy Council – Ceylon – Criminal law – Murder – Eye-witnesses to be called by prosecution\r\n– Onus of proof – View by jury – Discretion as to unanimity – Ceylon Evidence Ordinance\r\n(No 14 of 1895), ss 106, 157, 165 – Criminal Procedure Code (No 15 of 1898), s 238.\r\n', 'LORD MAUGHAM', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-29', 'COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries: CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(1108, 'Shears v Wells', '', '../links/cases/Shears v Wells.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Shears v Wells\r\nLandlord and Tenant – Grant of lease – Tenant precluded from inquiring into lessor’s title –\r\nNotice of restrictive covenants – Law of Property Act 1925 (c 20), s 44(2)(5).\r\n', 'LUXMOORE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-08', ' LANDLORD AND TENANT; Leases'),
(1109, 'Shiffman v The Grand Priory in the British Realm of the Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem', '', '../links/cases/Shiffman v The Grand Priory in the British Realm of the Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Shiffman v The Grand Priory in the British Realm of the Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem\r\nNegligence – Erection of flag pole – Public gathering – Allurement of children.\r\nThe defendants, at the request of the police, erected a casualty tent in a public place where it\r\nwas anticipated large crowds would gather.\r\n', 'ATKINSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-09', 'TORTS; Negligence'),
(1110, 'Shipton, Anderson & Co (1927) Ltd (in Liquidation) v Micks, Lambert & Co', '', '../links/cases/Shipton.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Shipton, Anderson & Co (1927) Ltd (in Liquidation) v Micks, Lambert & Co\r\nSale of Goods – Default by seller – Express power of re-purchase – Special procedure under\r\npower – Availability of common law remedy – Exercise of common law remedy and\r\nexemption from liability to account under express power.\r\n', 'BRANSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-03', 'SALE OF GOODS'),
(1111, 'Shrewsbury and Talbot (Countess) v Inland Revenue Commissioners', '', '../links/cases/Shrewsbury and Talbot.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Shrewsbury and Talbot (Countess) v Inland Revenue Commissioners\r\nIncome Tax – Annuity – “Clear of all deductions” – Sur-tax – Assessment on gross amount.\r\nThe appellant was entitled under private Acts of parliament and a jointure deed made in\r\npursuance of the said Acts to certain rent-charges “clear of all deductions whatsoever for\r\ntaxes or otherwise.”\r\n', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-23', 'TAXATION; Income Tax; Surtax'),
(1112, 'Sim v Stretch', '', '../links/cases/Sim v Stretch.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN AND LORD MACMILLAN', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Sim v Stretch\r\nLibel – Telegram – What words are reasonably capable of defamatory meaning – “The\r\nmoney you borrowed” – Borrowing from maidservant – Innuendo.\r\n', 'LORD ATKIN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-22', 'CTORTS; Defamation'),
(1113, 'Simmons v The Mayor, etc, of the Borough of Huntingdon', '', '../links/cases/Simmons v The Mayor.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Simmons v The Mayor, etc, of the Borough of Huntingdon\r\nNegligence – Bathing pool – Diving board near shallow water – No notice or warning.\r\nThe plaintiff was the father and administrator of a schoolboy, aged 15 years, who was killed\r\nby breaking his neck when diving from a diving board maintained by a borough council in a\r\nswimming pool under the control of the council.\r\n', 'HORRIDGE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-18', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT: TORTS; Nuisance'),
(1114, 'Sir Edward C Bowen v Inland Revenue Commissioners', '', '../links/cases/Sir Edward C Bowen v Inland Revenue Commissioners.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Sir Edward C Bowen v Inland Revenue Commissioners\r\nIncome Tax – Surtax – Deduction – Annuity – Deficiency of income from fund appropriated\r\n– Made up by advance charged on residue – All Schedules Rules, r 19.\r\n', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-07', 'TAXATION; Surtax'),
(1115, 'Sir Evan Williams (Bart), Thomas Evans, Sir David Richard Llewellyn (Bart) (Trustees for the Executive Board constituted under the South Wales District (Coal Mines) Scheme 1930) v Crumlin Valley Collieries Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Sir Evan Williams.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Sir Evan Williams (Bart), Thomas Evans, Sir David Richard Llewellyn (Bart) (Trustees for the Executive Board constituted under the South Wales District (Coal Mines) Scheme 1930) v Crumlin Valley Collieries Ltd\r\nMines – Coal mines – Regulation by quota – Excess of sum of export and inland supply over\r\noutput quota – Coal Mines Act 1930 (c 34).\r\n', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-23', 'INDUSTRY'),
(1116, 'Skilton v Epsom & Ewell Urban District Council', '', '../links/cases/Skilton v Epsom.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER LJJ, AND SWIFT J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Skilton v Epsom & Ewell Urban District Council\r\nHighways – Repair – Defective traffic stud – Non-feasance – Duty to repair stud not a duty as\r\nhighway authority.', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-27', 'ENVIRONMENTAL: LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(1117, 'Smith v Kinsey', '', '../links/cases/Smith v Kinsey.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER LJ AND MACNAGHTEN J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Smith v Kinsey\r\nLandlord and Tenant – Notice to quit – Severance of reversion – Notice as to severed part by\r\nowner of that part.\r\n', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-14', 'LANDLORD AND TENANT; Tenancies');
INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(1118, 'Sodeman v R', '', '../links/cases/Sodeman v R.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD MACMILLAN AND SIR ISAAC ISAACS', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Sodeman v R\r\nCriminal Law – Murder – Insanity – Accused aware that act was wrong – Irresistible impulse\r\n– Burden of proof.\r\n\r\n', 'VISCOUNT HAILSHAM LC', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-28', 'COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries: CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(1119, 'Spink (Bournemouth) Ltd v Douglas Oliver Spink', '', '../links/cases/Spink.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Spink (Bournemouth) Ltd v Douglas Oliver Spink\r\nTrade – Covenant in restraint of trade – Entered into at termination of employment – Transfer\r\nof shares in limited company – Consideration paid by company – Severability – Companies\r\nAct 1929 (c 23) s 45.\r\n', 'LUXMOORE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-10', 'EMPLOYMENT; Contract of service'),
(1120, 'Starkey v Hall', '', '../links/cases/Starkey v Hall.pdf', 'Yes', 'DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Starkey v Hall\r\nInsurance – Third party risks – Certificate of Insurance – Delivery – Production – Road\r\nTraffic Act 1930 (c 43), ss 36, 40.\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-21', 'INSURANCE'),
(1121, 'Starkey v Hall', '', '../links/cases/Starkey v Hall.pdf', 'Yes', 'DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Starkey v Hall\r\nInsurance – Third party risks – Certificate of Insurance – Delivery – Production – Road\r\nTraffic Act 1930 (c 43), ss 36, 40.\r\n\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-21', 'INSURANCE'),
(1122, 'Stepney Corporation v Osofsky', '', '../links/cases/Stepney Corporation v Osofsky.pdf', 'Yes', 'SWIFT AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Stepney Corporation v Osofsky\r\nContract – Appropriation of payments – Statute-barred debt – Implied appropriation by\r\ndebtor – Charges for removal of refuse.\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-29', 'CONTRACT'),
(1123, 'Stevens v Walker', '', '../links/cases/Stevens v Walker.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER LJ AND CHARLES J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Stevens v Walker\r\nPractice – Remission of action for personal injuries to county court – Grounds for exercise of\r\ndiscretion – Means of plaintiff – Severity of injuries – County Courts Act 1919 (c 73), s 2.\r\n', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-06', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Courts: CIVIL PROCEDURE'),
(1124, 'Stewart v Sashalite Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Stewart v Sashalite Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Stewart v Sashalite Ltd\r\nCompanies – Contract for services and transfer of rights – Payment “out of first profits in\r\npriority to all dividends.”\r\n', 'BRANSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-29', 'COMPANY; Shares: CONTRACT'),
(1125, 'Stockwell v Southgate Corporation', '', '../links/cases/Stockwell v Southgate Corporation.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Stockwell v Southgate Corporation\r\nHighways – Repair – Liability of local authority – Substitution of new highway – New\r\nhighway not viewed by justices – Declaration in High Court or procedure before justices –\r\nDiscretion of court – Estoppel – Highways Act 1835, (c 50) s 91.', 'PORTER J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-24', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: ENVIRONMENTAL'),
(1126, 'Stott v Green', '', '../links/cases/Stott v Green.pdf', 'Yes', 'HUMPHREYS AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Stott v Green\r\nStott v Henshaw\r\nSale of Goods – False trade description – Lysol Soap – Fixing a standard for a commodity –\r\nMerchandise Marks Act 1887 (c 28), s 2.\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-19', 'CONSUMER; Consumer protection: SALE OF GOODS'),
(1127, 'Strangeways-Lesmere v Clayton and Others', '', '../links/cases/Strangeways.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Strangeways-Lesmere v Clayton and Others\r\nMedicine – Negligence of nurses – Professional duty – Liability of hospital.\r\nTwo nurses misread their written instructions and administered to a patient a dose of six\r\nounces of paraldehyde instead of six drachms, with the result that the patient died.\r\n', 'HORRIDGE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-06', 'PROFESSIONS; Medical'),
(1128, 'Strood Estates Co Ltd v Gregory', '', '../links/cases/Strood Estates Co Ltd v Gregory.pdf', 'Yes', 'SCOTT LJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Strood Estates Co Ltd v Gregory\r\nLandlord and Tenant – Restriction on increase of rent – Rates – Compounding by landlord –\r\nCalculation of net rent – Increase of rent – Improvements or structural alterations – Increase\r\nof Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920 (c 17), ss 2(1)(c), 12(1)(c) – Housing\r\nAct 1925 (c 14), s 1.', 'SIR BOYD MERRIMAN P', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-21', 'HOUSING: LANDLORD AND TENANT; Rent'),
(1129, 'Sturtevant Engineering Co Ltd v Sturtevant Mill Co of USA Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Sturtevant Engineering Co Ltd v Sturtevant Mill Co of USA Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Sturtevant Engineering Co Ltd v Sturtevant Mill Co of USA Ltd\r\nTrade Names – American company trading only in America – English company formed by\r\nAmerican company – Right of established English company to restrain use of name – Right\r\nto trade in own real name.\r\n', 'FARWELL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-16', 'COMPANY; Incorporation'),
(1130, 'Surridge’s Patents Ltd v Trico-Folberth Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Surridge.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Surridge’s Patents Ltd v Trico-Folberth Ltd\r\nPatent – Action to restrain threats – What constitutes a threat – Patents and Designs Acts\r\n(1907–1932), s 36.', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-16', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Patents'),
(1131, 'Sutherland Publishing Company Limited v Caxton Publishing Company Limited', '', '../links/cases/Sutherland Publishing Company Limited v Caxton Publishing Company Limited.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Sutherland Publishing Company Limited v Caxton Publishing Company Limited\r\nCopyright – Infringement – Damages – Damages for infringement and conversion\r\nCumulative or alternative – Copyright Act 1911 (c 46), ss 6 and 7.\r\n', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-07', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Copyright'),
(1132, 'Swain v West (Butchers) Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Swain v Wes1.pdf', 'Yes', ' AND GREENE LJJ AND MACKINNON J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Swain v West (Butchers) Ltd\r\nMaster and Servant – Fraud – Dismissal – Agreement to give information concerning fraud of\r\nfellow-employee – Consideration – Estoppel – Duty of employee to disclose fraud of fellowemployee.\r\n', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-22', 'EMPLOYMENT; Contract of service'),
(1133, 'Swain v West (Butchers) Limited', '', '../links/cases/Swain v West.pdf', 'Yes', 'AND A SPECIAL JURY', '1936', 'High Court', 'Swain v West (Butchers) Limited\r\nMaster and servant – Fraud – Dismissal – Agreement to give information concerning fraud of\r\nfellow-employee – Consideration – Estoppel – Duty of employee to disclose fraud of fellowemployee.\r\n', 'FINLAY J ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-10', 'EMPLOYMENT; Contract of Service, Wrongful Dismissal'),
(1134, 'Symes and Jaywick Association Properties Ltd v Essex Rivers Catchment Board', '', '../links/cases/Symes and Jaywick Association Properties Ltd v Essex Rivers Catchment Board.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Symes and Jaywick Association Properties Ltd v Essex Rivers Catchment Board\r\nSewers and Drains – Land drainage – Sea-wall – Removal of sluice – Land Drainage Act\r\n1930 (c 44) ss 1(3), 7, 34.\r\n', 'ATKINSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-14', 'ENVIRONMENTAL: TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING'),
(1135, 'Taylor v Webb', '', '../links/cases/Taylor v Webb.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Taylor v Webb\r\nLandlord and Tenant – Repair – Exception of fair wear and tear – Tenant’s failure to pay rent\r\n– Independent covenants.\r\n', 'DU PARCQ J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-06', ' LANDLORD AND TENANT; Leases'),
(1136, 'Telsen Electric Co Ltd v J J Eastick & Sons', '', '../links/cases/Telsen Electric Co Ltd v J J Eastick.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Telsen Electric Co Ltd v J J Eastick & Sons\r\nCompanies – Winding up – Set-off – Damages for breach of contract – Breach of price\r\nmaintenance agreement – Breach by receiver before appointment of liquidator.\r\n', ' LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-21', ' COMPANY; Insolvency: CONTRACT'),
(1137, 'The “Prinses Juliana,” Owners of the Motor Ship or Vessel “Esbjerg” v Owners of the Steamship or Vessel “Prinses Juliana”', '', '../links/cases/The “Prinses Juliana,” Owners of the Motor Ship or Vessel “Esbjerg” v Owners of the Steamship or Vessel “Prinses Juliana”.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'The “Prinses Juliana,” Owners of the Motor Ship or Vessel “Esbjerg” v Owners of the Steamship or Vessel “Prinses Juliana”\r\nCourt: PROBATE DIVORCE AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION\r\nLord(s): BUCKNILL J WITH TRINITY MASTERS\r\n', 'BUCKNILL J WITH TRINITY MASTERS', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-12', 'SHIPPING'),
(1138, 'The Aeolian Company Limited v Inland Revenue Commissioners Inland Revenue Commissioners v The Aeolian Company Limited', '', '../links/cases/The Aeolian Company Limited v Inland Revenue Commissioners.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'The Aeolian Company Limited v Inland Revenue Commissioners\r\nInland Revenue Commissioners v The Aeolian Company Limited\r\nIncome Tax – Dividends – Cumulative dividends – Guarantee – Payment out of profits –\r\nAnnual payment.\r\n', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-07', 'COMPANY; Shares: TAXATION; Income Tax'),
(1139, 'The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Presidency and Aden and Others v The Bombay Trust Corporation Ltd', '', '../links/cases/The Commissioner of Income Tax.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD THANKERTON, SIR SHADI LAL, SIR GEORGE RANKIN AND SIR GEORGE RICH', '1936', 'Appeal', 'The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Presidency and Aden and Others v The Bombay Trust Corporation Ltd\r\nIncome Tax – Valid assessment on loan interest – Alteration of company’s loan arrangements\r\n– Continuation of assessment – Necessity for authorities to show rearrangement not a real\r\ntransaction.\r\n\r\n', 'LORD ATKIN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-17', 'COMMONWEALTH; Commonwealth countries: TAXATION; Tax Avoidance'),
(1140, 'The County Valuation Committee for the County of Middlesex v The Assessment Committee for the West Middlesex Assessment Area', '', '../links/cases/The County Valuation Committee for the County of Middlesex v The Assessment Committee for the West Middlesex Assessment Area.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'The County Valuation Committee for the County of Middlesex v The Assessment Committee for the West Middlesex Assessment Area\r\nRates and Rating – Assessment committee meetings – Right of exclusion – County valuation\r\ncommittee officer – Rating and Valuation Act 1925 (c 90), ss 17, 18.\r\n', 'FARWELL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-16', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT'),
(1141, 'The Debtor v The Petitioning Creditor and the Official Receiver', '', '../links/cases/The Debtor v The Petitioning Creditor and the Official Receiver.pdf', 'Yes', ' AND LUXMOORE JJ', '1936', 'High Court', 'The Debtor v The Petitioning Creditor and the Official Receiver\r\nBankruptcy – Married woman – Business debts –Judgment before 2 August 1935 –\r\nSubsequently increased to £50 by interest – Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors)\r\nAct 1935 (c 30), s 4(1)(c).\r\n', 'CLAUSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-27', 'BANKRUPTCY'),
(1142, 'The Dover Harbour Board, The Owners, and the Master and Crew of the Steam Tug “Lady Duncannon” v The Owners of the Steamship “Eisenach,” her Cargo and Freight', '', '../links/cases/The Dover Harbour Board.pdf', 'Yes', 'WITH TRINITY MASTERS', '1936', 'High Court', 'The Dover Harbour Board, The Owners, and the Master and Crew of the Steam Tug\r\n“Lady Duncannon” v The Owners of the Steamship “Eisenach,” her Cargo and Freight\r\nShipping – Salvage – Sound value – Restrictions on exchange – Restrictions on sale of ships.\r\nThe “Eisenach,” a German ship, was salved and towed into Dover Harbour, and the salvors\r\nalleged that her sound value at the time the services ended was £45,000.\r\n\r\n', 'BUCKNILL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-01', 'SHIPPING'),
(1143, 'The Executors of Arthur Marshall, deceased, The Executors of E W Hood, deceased,and Louis James Rogers v R R Joly (HM Inspector of Taxes)', '', '../links/cases/The Executors of Arthur Marshall.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'The Executors of Arthur Marshall, deceased, The Executors of E W Hood, deceased,and Louis James Rogers v R R Joly (HM Inspector of Taxes)\r\nIncome Tax – Executors – Realisation of estate – “Carrying on trade.”\r\nM H and R carried on in partnership a trade of dealing in land. Land purchased by the\r\npartnership was, by agreement, developed and sold by a limited company, and the price to be\r\npaid to the partnership for the land so developed was fixed after the sale.\r\n', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-02', 'TAXATION; Estate Duty'),
(1144, 'The Imperial Tobacco Company (of Great Britain and Ireland) Limited v Parslay', '', '../links/cases/The Imperial Tobacco Company.pdf', 'Yes', 'SLESSER AND ROMER LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'The Imperial Tobacco Company (of Great Britain and Ireland) Limited v Parslay\r\nDamages – Liquidated damages or penalty – Pre-estimate of damage – “Price-maintenance”\r\nagreement – Disparity between parties – Disparity between damages and price of article.', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-27', 'CIVIL PROCEDURES: SALE OF GOODS'),
(1145, 'The Owners of SS “Rockabill” v The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Bycounterclaim)', '', '../links/cases/The Owners of SS.pdf', 'Yes', 'WITH TRINITY MASTERS', '1936', 'High Court', 'The Owners of SS “Rockabill” v The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Bycounterclaim)\r\nShipping – Collision – Ship leaving dock – Order of dockmaster – Liability of dock authority.\r\nThe “Rockabill” was proceeding out of the Princes Half Tide Dock at Liverpool and the\r\n“King Orry” was proceeding from the Princes Landing Stage to her anchorage when a\r\ncollision occurred.\r\n', 'BUCKNILL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-26', 'SHIPPING'),
(1146, 'The Owners, Master and Crew of SS “Finland” v The Owners of the “Cornish Rose”', '', '../links/cases/The Owners.pdf', 'Yes', 'WITH A TRINITY MASTER', '1936', 'High Court', 'The Owners, Master and Crew of SS “Finland” v The Owners of the “Cornish Rose” Cargo and Freight\r\nShipping – Collision – Salvage – Admissions in pleadings – Inferences from admissions –\r\nAdmissibility of logs.\r\n', 'SIR BOYD MERRIMAN P', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-11', 'SHIPPING'),
(1147, 'The “Holstein”', '', '../links/cases/The.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'The “Holstein”\r\nAdmiralty – Practice – Action in personam – Writ – Service – General shipping agents in\r\nEngland – Whether agents of particular foreign shipping company.\r\n', 'SIR BOYD MERRIMAN P', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-27', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: SHIPPING'),
(1148, 'The “Kafaristan”', '', '../links/cases/The1.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'The “Kafaristan”\r\nShipping – Salvage – Collision – Apportionment of blame – Salvage services by ship in same\r\nownership as ship in collision – Remuneration – Circuity of action.', 'BUCKNILL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-11-12', 'SHIPPING'),
(1149, 'Thomas v Attorney-General', '', '../links/cases/Thomas v Attorney.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Thomas v Attorney-General\r\nPractice – Originating summons – Application for declaration as to powers – Powers under\r\nSettled Land Act 1925, and under private Act – Whether powers extended by public Act –\r\nDiscretion of court – RSC Ord 54A, r 1A.\r\n', ' FARWELL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-15', ' CIVIL PROCEDURE'),
(1150, 'Thomas v Metropolitan Housing Corporation Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Thomas v Metropolitan Housing Corporation Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', ' AND SCOTT LJJ, AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Thomas v Metropolitan Housing Corporation Ltd\r\nRent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act 1923, s 2 – “Actual possession” – Key in\r\nlandlord’s letter-box.\r\n', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-07', ' HOUSING: LANDLORD AND TENANT; Tenancies'),
(1151, 'Tibbals v Port of London Authority', '', '../links/cases/Tibbals v Port of London Authority.pdf', 'Yes', 'AND ROMER LJJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Tibbals v Port of London Authority\r\nPublic Authorities – Superannuation – War bonus – Whether included in calculation of pension.', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-17', 'ADMINISTRATIVE: PENSIONS'),
(1152, 'Timpson’s Executors v Yerbury', '', '../links/cases/Timpson.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Timpson’s Executors v Yerbury\r\nIncome Tax – Foreign trust fund – Life tenant resident in England – Revocable mandate to\r\ntransmit part of income to named persons in England – Income of life tenant – Income Tax\r\nAct 1918, Sched D, Case V, r 2 – Miscellaneous Rules applicable to Sched D, r 1 – Finance\r\nAct 1922, s 18.\r\n', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-01-31', 'TAXATION; Income Tax'),
(1153, 'Toller v Law Accident Insurance Society Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Toller v Law Accident Insurance Society Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', ' AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'High Court', 'Toller v Law Accident Insurance Society Ltd\r\nArbitration – Stay of legal proceedings – Insurance policy containing arbitration clause –\r\nAction on policy – Denial of existence of policy – Claim for arbitration – Repudiation.\r\n', ' GREENE', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-29', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Arbitration: INSURANCE'),
(1154, 'Tolnay and Another v Criterion Film Productions Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Tolnay and Another v Criterion Film Productions Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Tolnay and Another v Criterion Film Productions Ltd\r\nDamages – Breach of contract – Loss of publicity – Screen credit – Author of screen play.\r\n', 'GODDARD J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-30', 'CONTRACT'),
(1155, 'Trade Indemnity Company Limited v The Workington Harbour and Dock Board', '', '../links/cases/Trade Indemnity Company Limited v The Workington Harbour and Dock Board.pdf', 'Yes', ' LORD THANKERTON, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MACMILLAN AND LORD ROCHE', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Trade Indemnity Company Limited v The Workington Harbour and Dock Board\r\nGuarantee – Duty to disclose – Contracting out of disclosure – Variation – Loans to principal\r\ndebtor.\r\n\r\n', 'LORD ATKIN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-11', 'CONSTRUCTION: CONTRACT'),
(1156, 'Trinidad Petroleum Development Company v Inland Revenue Commissioners', '', '../links/cases/Trinidad Petroleum Development Company v Inland Revenue Commissioners.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Trinidad Petroleum Development Company v Inland Revenue Commissioners\r\nIncome Tax – Payable wholly out of profits brought into charge – Losses brought forward\r\ngreater than net profits for year – Whether brought into charge – Finance Act 1926 (c 22),\r\ns 33 – All Schedules Rules, r 19.\r\n', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-18', 'TAXATION; Profits'),
(1157, 'ABAKAH v ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOTHER', '', '../links/cases/ABAKAH v ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOTHER [1993-94] 1GLR 325 – 331..pdf', 'Yes', 'ABBAN, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, HAYFRON-BENJAMIN AND AMPIAH JJSC', '1994', 'Supreme', 'Constitutional law – Pension - Retiring awards of superior court justices - Justices retiring under article 155(1) of Constitution, 1992 entitled to person equal to “salary” while in service - Determination of constituents of salaries - Article 71(3) defining “salaries” to include allowances, facilities, privileges, retiring benefits or awards - Definition exclusively for guidance of committee appointed by President under article 71(1) to determine service conditions of specified public servants - Use of “salary” in article 155(1) neither ambiguous nor equivocal - Whether “salary” in article 155(1) to be given natural, ordinary, everyday meaning - Whether “salary” including use of official car and bungalow or commensurate equivalent - Scope of entitlements of superior court  judge retiring under article 155(1) - Constitution, 1992, arts 71(1) and (3) and 155(1).', 'ABBAN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1994-07-19', ' Pension'),
(1158, 'Tynedale Steam Shipping Co Ltd v Anglo-Soviet Shipping Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Tynedale Steam Shipping Co Ltd v Anglo.pdf', 'Yes', 'SCOTT LJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Tynedale Steam Shipping Co Ltd v Anglo-Soviet Shipping Co Ltd\r\nShipping – “Baltime” Charter – Damage hindering discharge – Cesser of hire clause –\r\nAdditional costs of discharge.', 'LORD ROCHE', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-02', 'SHIPPING'),
(1159, 'United Dairies (London) Ltd v Stirling', '', '../links/cases/United Dairies 1.pdf', 'Yes', 'AND SCOTT LJJ AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'United Dairies (London) Ltd v Stirling\r\nWorkmen’s Compensation – Partial incapacity – Treated as total incapacity – Review of\r\ncompensation – Failure to take reasonable steps to find employment – Change of\r\ncircumstances – Workmen’s Compensation Act 1931 (c 18), s 1.', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-22', 'EMPLOYMENT; Other Employment'),
(1160, 'United Dairies (Wholesale) Ltd v Lemon and the Milk Marketing Board', '', '../links/cases/United Dairies.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'United Dairies (Wholesale) Ltd v Lemon and the Milk Marketing Board\r\nAgriculture – Marketing scheme – Determination of prices – Milk Act 1934 (c 51), s 4.', 'BRANSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-29', 'AGRICULTURE'),
(1161, 'Upjohn v Simmons', '', '../links/cases/Upjohn v Simmons.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Upjohn v Simmons\r\nPractice – Summary judgment for specific performance – Issue to be tried – Interest on\r\npurchase money – RSC Ord 14A.', 'BENNETT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-18', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Courts: LAND; Sale of Land'),
(1162, 'Victoria Spinning Company (Rochdale) Ltd v Matthews', '', '../links/cases/Victoria Spinning Company.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN AND LORD MACMILLAN', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Victoria Spinning Company (Rochdale) Ltd v Matthews\r\nWorkmen’s Compensation – Adjusting defective machinery in motion in contravention of\r\nregulation – Dangerous act for purposes of employers’ trade or business – Whether accident\r\narising out of and in course of employment – Workmen’s Compensation Act 1925, (c 84)\r\ns 1(1), (2).', 'LORD ATKIN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-22', 'EMPLOYMENT; Other Employment: HEALTH; Health and safety at work'),
(1163, 'W J Jacobs v Aveling-Barford Limited', '', '../links/cases/W J Jacobs v Aveling.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'W J Jacobs v Aveling-Barford Limited\r\nPractice – Declaratory judgment – Right to commission as agent – No commission accrued\r\ndue – RSC Ord XXV, r 5.\r\n', 'FINLAY J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-11', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: CONTRACT'),
(1164, 'W——, M J v W——, H R W', '', '../links/cases/W.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'W——, M J v W——, H R W\r\nDivorce – Intervention after decree nisi – Woman named – No application to intervene in suit\r\n– Member of the public – “Person” – Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925\r\n(c 49), s 183(2) – Divorce Rules 1924, rr 17, 18, 19.\r\n', 'BUCKNILL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-26', 'FAMILY; Divorce; Family Proceedings'),
(1165, 'Walter Marchant v Same', '', '../links/cases/Walter Marchant v Same.pdf', 'Yes', ' AND GREENE LJJ AND MACKINNON J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Walter Marchant v Same\r\nPractice – Consolidation of actions – Separate libels contained in one book – Probable\r\nembarrassment at trial – Difficulty of apportioning costs – RSC Ord 49, r 8.', 'GREER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-14', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE'),
(1166, 'Ward v Tibbatts', '', '../links/cases/Ward v Tibbatts.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Ward v Tibbatts\r\nLimitation of Actions – Loan – Acknowledgment – Implication of promise to pay.\r\nThe plaintiff alleged that he made nine loans to the defendant over a period of six months in\r\nthe years 1922, 1923. In respect of these an action was commenced on 10 October 1935.\r\n', 'SINGLETON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-16', 'BANKING AND FINANCE: CIVIL PROCEDURE: CONTRACT'),
(1167, 'Warmingtons v McMurray', '', '../links/cases/Warmingtons v McMurray.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Warmingtons v McMurray\r\nSolicitors – Retainer – Retainer to prosecute a succession of matters – Entire contract –\r\nTermination – Costs.\r\n', 'GODDARD J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-13', 'PROFESSIONS; Lawyers'),
(1168, 'Warner Brothers Pictures Inc v Nelson', '', '../links/cases/Warner Brothers Pictures Inc v Nelson.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Warner Brothers Pictures Inc v Nelson\r\nMaster and servant – Contract of service – Film actress – Negative stipulations –\r\nEnforcement by injunction.\r\n', 'BRANSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-19', 'EMPLOYMENT; Contract of service'),
(1169, 'Watts v The Official Solicitor', '', '../links/cases/Watts v The Official Solicitor.pdf', 'Yes', ' AND SCOTT LJJ, AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Watts v The Official Solicitor\r\nPractice – Official Solicitor representing deceased defendant – Notice of change of solicitors\r\nby Official Solicitor – Substitution of Official Solicitor for solicitor on record.\r\n', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-17', 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; Other Administration of Justice:PROFESSIONS; Lawyers'),
(1170, 'Weigall v Westminster Hospital', '', '../links/cases/Weigall v Westminster Hospital.pdf', 'Yes', ' AND SCOTT LJJ, AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Weigall v Westminster Hospital\r\n', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-13', ' HEALTH: TORTS; Negligence'),
(1171, 'West Bromwich Building Society v Bullock', '', '../links/cases/West Bromwich Building Society v Bullock.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'West Bromwich Building Society v Bullock\r\nMortgage – Building Society – Mortgagor transferring property and shares in society – No\r\nrelease from covenant – Action on covenant.\r\n', 'ATKINSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-07', 'BANKING AND FINANCE'),
(1172, 'ADOMAKO v APPENTENG ', '', '../links/cases/ADOMAKO v APPENTENG [1993­94] 1 GLR 81—88.pdf', 'Yes', 'ESSIEM, ADJABENG AND BROBBEY JJA', '1994', 'Appeal', 'ADOMAKO v APPENTENG      Practice and procedure—Pleadings—Issues for trial—Substitution—Principle in Dam v Addo prescribing substitution of case contrary to pleadings—Whether principle applicable where new case based on pure point of law or binding decided case—Action against trustee for conversion of trust money brought under section 15(1) of NRCD 54—Preliminary objection that action statute-barred by six-year limitation period under section—Trial judge overruling objection on ground that action maintainable under section 15(4) of NRCD 54—None of parties basing case on section 15(4) of NRCD 54—Whether High Court justified in suo motu applying section 15(4) of NRCD 51 to overrule objection—Limitation Decree, 1972 (NRCD 54), s 15(1) and (4).', 'ESSIEM', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1994-01-27', 'Practice and procedure—Pleadings—Issues for trial—Substitution'),
(1173, 'Western Engraving Co v Film Laboratories Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Western Engraving Co v Film Laboratories Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', ' AND SCOTT LJJ, AND EVE J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Western Engraving Co v Film Laboratories Ltd\r\nNuisance – Escape of water from factory premises – Extraordinary user – Doctrine of\r\nRylands v Fletcher.\r\n', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-02-04', 'TORTS; Nuisance'),
(1174, 'Westminster Bank Ltd v Imperial Airways Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Westminster Bank Ltd v Imperial Airways Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Westminster Bank Ltd v Imperial Airways Ltd\r\nCarriers – International air carriage – Consignment note – Incorporation of rules of\r\nConvention – Commencement of air carriage – Registered goods – Carriage by Air Act 1932\r\n(c 36), sched 1, arts 8, 22(2).\r\n', 'LEWIS J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-06-29', 'AVIATION: INTERNATIONAL; Air Law'),
(1175, 'Westminster City Council v Southern Railway Company and others', '', '../links/cases/Westminster City Council v Southern Railway Company and others.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD MACMILLAN AND LORD WRIGHT MR', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Westminster City Council v Southern Railway Company and others\r\nRating – Railway hereditaments – Premises let at railway stations – Whether capable of\r\nseparate assessment – Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act 1930 (c 24), s 1(3).\r\n', 'LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-20', 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT: TRANSPORT; Rail'),
(1176, 'Westminster City Council v Treby', '', '../links/cases/Westminster City Council v Treby.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Westminster City Council v Treby\r\nCompanies – Debenture – Receiver – Preferential debt – Payment to debenture holder –\r\nRefunding – Indemnity – Legality of payment – Companies Act 1929 (c 23) s 78.\r\n', 'FARWELL J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-04-21', 'COMPANY; Shareholders'),
(1177, 'Whelan v Alfred Leney and Company Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Whelan v Alfred Leney and Company Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'LORD BLANESBURGH, LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, LORD MACMILLAN, LORD ROCHE', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Whelan v Alfred Leney and Company Ltd\r\nIncome Tax – Lease of “tied” licensed premises – Rent received by lessors in excess of Sched\r\nA assessment – Profit under Sched D – Income Tax Act 1918 (c 40), Scheds A and D.\r\n', 'LORD HAILSHAM C', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-09', 'LEISURE AND LICENSING: TAXATION; Income Tax'),
(1178, 'White v Altrincham Urban District Council', '', '../links/cases/White v Altrincham Urban District Council.pdf', 'Yes', 'GREENE AND SCOTT LJJ', '1936', 'Supreme', 'White v Altrincham Urban District Council\r\nMaster and Servant – Workmen’s compensation – Costs – Discretion of judge to order\r\npayment into court – Review of taxation – Limitation of power of judge to vary quantum of\r\ncosts taxed by registrar – County Courts Act 1888 (c 43), s 118 – Workmen’s Compensation\r\nAct 1925, (c 84), Sched I(7) – Workmen’s Compensation Rules 1926, rr 8, 29, 76, 78 –\r\nCounty Court Rules, Ord 53.', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-07', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: HEALTH; Health and safety at work'),
(1179, 'Whittle v Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron & Coal Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Whittle v Ebbw Vale Steel.pdf', 'Yes', 'MACKINNON AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Supreme', 'Whittle v Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron & Coal Co Ltd\r\nMaster and Servant – Workmen’s compensation – Death due to disease – Heart disease –Acceleration due to employment.\r\n', 'SLESSER LJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-16', 'EMPLOYMENT; Other Employment: HEALTH; Health and safety at work'),
(1180, 'William Cory & Son Limited v Dorman Long & Company Limited', '', '../links/cases/William Cory.pdf', 'Yes', ' AND ROMER LJJ AND FINLAY J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'William Cory & Son Limited v Dorman Long & Company Limited\r\nShipping – Collision – Limitation of liability – Owner or charterer by demise – Merchant\r\nShipping Act 1894 (c 60), s 503(1)(ii) – Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and\r\nOthers) Act 1900 (c 32), s 1 – Merchant Shipping Act 1906 (c 48), s 71 – Merchant Shipping\r\nAct 1921 (c 28), s 1(2).\r\n', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-04', 'SHIPPING'),
(1181, 'William H Muller & Co’s Algemeene Etc v Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron & Coal Co Ltd', '', '../links/cases/William H Muller.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'William H Muller & Co’s Algemeene Etc v Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron & Coal Co Ltd\r\nPractice – Trial by judge alone – Submission of no case to answer – Whether undertaking not\r\nto call further evidence obligatory.\r\n\r\n', 'BRANSON J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-07-15', 'CIVIL PROCEDURE: CONTRACT'),
(1182, 'Williams v Hughes', '', '../links/cases/Williams v Hughes.pdf', 'Yes', 'DU PARCQ AND GODDARD JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Williams v Hughes\r\nAgriculture – Minimum wages – Deduction – Benefit received by worker – Agricultural\r\nWages (Regulation) Act 1924 (c 37), s 7(11).\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-26', 'AGRICULTURE'),
(1183, 'Willoughby v Eckstein', '', '../links/cases/Willoughby v Eckstein.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER AND GREENE LJJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Willoughby v Eckstein\r\nPractice – Pleading – Part of statement of claim showing no cause of action – Striking out\r\npart – RSC Ord 19, r 27; Ord 25, r 4.\r\n', 'SLESSER', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-02', 'CIVIL PROCEDURES: EQUITY'),
(1184, 'Wilson Box (Foreign Rights) Ltd (in Liquidation) v Brice (Inspector of Taxes)', '', '../links/cases/Wilson Box.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Wilson Box (Foreign Rights) Ltd (in Liquidation) v Brice (Inspector of Taxes)\r\nIncome Tax – Trading profit – Sale of patent rights – Sale in course of liquidation of company.\r\n', 'LAWRENCE J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-19', 'TAXATION; Profits'),
(1185, 'With v O’Flanagan', '', '../links/cases/With v O.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER LJ AND CLAUSON J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'With v O’Flanagan\r\nMisrepresentation – Continuing representation – True when made but subsequently become\r\nuntrue – Rescission.\r\n', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-03-06', 'CONTRACT: PROFESSIONS; Medical'),
(1186, 'Woodward and Another v Wolfe', '', '../links/cases/Woodward and Another v Wolfe.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'Woodward and Another v Wolfe\r\nGaming and Wagering – Time or difference bargains – Cotton futures – Principal and broker.\r\nThe plaintiffs were cotton merchants who, inter alia, transacted business in the cotton market\r\non behalf of members of the public who wished to gamble in cotton futures.\r\n', 'HILBERY J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-11-06', 'LEISURE AND LICENSING'),
(1187, 'World Transport Company v Tealing and Company', '', '../links/cases/World Transport Company v Tealing and Company.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1936', 'High Court', 'World Transport Company v Tealing and Company\r\nCarriers – Remedies – Delivery to market salesman – Liability to pay carriage out of\r\nproceeds of sale.\r\n', 'HILBERY J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-05-05', 'CONTRACT: SALE OF GOODS: TRANSPORT; Road'),
(1188, 'Wray v Essex County Council', '', '../links/cases/Wray v Essex County Council.pdf', 'Yes', 'ROMER LJ AND MACNAGHTEN J', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Wray v Essex County Council\r\nEducation – Local education authority – Liability for negligence of master – Boy carrying\r\noilcan.\r\n', 'LORD WRIGHT MR', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-15', 'EDUCATION'),
(1189, 'Wurzal v Houghton Main Home Coal Delivery Service Ltd', '', '../links/cases/Wurzal v Houghton Main Home Coal Delivery Service Ltd.pdf', 'Yes', 'SWIFT AND DU PARCQ JJ', '1936', 'Appeal', 'Wurzal v Houghton Main Home Coal Delivery Service Ltd\r\nStreet Traffic – Motor vehicles – Private carrier’s “C” licence – Carriage for hire or reward –\r\nRoad and Rail Traffic Act 1933 (c 53), s 2(1).\r\n', 'LORD HEWART LCJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1936-10-27', 'TRANSPORT; Road'),
(1190, 'ABUDULAI MOHAMMED v. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/ABUDULAI MOHAMMED v. THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1971', 'High Court', 'ABUDULAI MOHAMMED v. THE REPUBLIC  Evidence—Previous convictions—Admissibility—Magistrate influenced by improperly admitted evidence of previous convictions.\r\n\r\nCriminal law and procedure—Appeals—No finding on issue joined—Conviction of appellant not based on any finding on issue joined between him and prosecution—Whether conviction vitiated—Whether proper course is to order re-trial on analogy with civil cases.', 'EDWARD WIREDU J.', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-01-15', 'Criminal'),
(1191, 'ACHEAMPONG v. OVERSEAS BREWERIES LTD.', '', '../links/cases/ACHEAMPONG v. OVERSEAS BREWERIES LTD.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1970', 'High Court', 'ACHEAMPONG v. OVERSEAS BREWERIES LTD.  Negligence—Duty of care—Manufacturer’s liability—Presence of kerosene in bottle of beer manufactured by defendants—Whether production system fool-proof.\n\nHEADNOTES\n\nThe plaintiff claimed that he suffered injury after drinking beer containing some kerosene which had been negligently manufactured by the defendants.', 'ANNAN J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1970-07-15', 'Negligence'),
(1192, 'AGYEMANG II v THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/AGYEMANG II v THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', 'AMUAH, BROBBEY AND FORSTER JJA', '1993', 'Appeal', 'AGYEMANG II v THE REPUBLIC     Criminal law and procedure—Submission of no case—Ruling on—Self-serving extra-judicial statement of accused—Whether relevant in determination of submission of no case—Trial of accused on charge of stealing—Sufficient evidence led in proof of charge at close of case—Trial judge overruling submission of no case by appellant—Whether contention by appellant that his caution statement ignored by trial judge sustainable—Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), s 173—Evidence Decree, 1975 (NRCD 323), s 118.', 'AMUAH', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-06-22', 'Criminal law and procedure—Submission of no case'),
(1193, 'ANSU-AGYEI AND OTHERS v FIMAH AND OTHERS', '', '../links/cases/ANSU­AGYEI AND OTHERS v FIMAH AND OTHERS [1993­94] 1 GLR 299—307..pdf', 'Yes', 'FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, HAYFRON-BENJAMIN AND AMPIAH JJSC', '1994', 'Supreme', 'ANSU-AGYEI AND OTHERS v FIMAH AND OTHERS    hieftaincy—Swearing of oath of allegiance—Prevention by Omanhene—Proper party to be sued—Omanhene president of traditional council—Refusal of Omanhene to permit alleged krontihene to swear oath of allegiance to him—Oath purely customary and responsibility of Omanhene and Omanhene—Action by alleged krontihene and others against Omanhene and traditional council, among others, in respect of refusal—Whether joinder of traditional council to action proper. ', 'FRANCOIS', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1994-07-26', 'Chieftaincy—Swearing of oath of allegiance'),
(1194, 'ANIM-ADDO and Others v MENSAH alias BIAMA and Others ', '', '../links/cases/ANIM-ADDO and Others v MENSAH alias BIAMA and Others [1993-94] 1 GLR 7—14.pdf', 'Yes', 'AMPIAH, KPEGAH JJSC AND OFORI-BOATENG JA', '1993', 'Appeal', 'ANIM-ADDO and Others v MENSAH alias BIAMA and Others   Statutes—statutes of general application—Law of Property Act, 1925—Rules against perpetuities and accumulations—Sections 161 and 164(1) and (2) of the Act of 1925 of general application in the country—Section 161 abolishing double possibility rule prohibiting granting of life interest to unborn child or issue of unborn person—Section 164 imposing general restrictions on accumulation of income—Whether rules against perpetuities and accumulations applicable in the country—Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372), ss 49(1), r 2 and 111(4)—Wills Act, 1971 (Act 360)—Law of property Act, 1925 (15 Geo V, c 20), ss 161 and 164(1) and (2).  ', 'AMPIAH', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-03-25', 'Statutes'),
(1195, 'APPIAH II v BOAKYE', '', '../links/cases/APPIAH II v BOAKYE [1993­94] 1 GLR 417—429.pdf', 'Yes', 'FRANCOIS, ABBAN, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, EDWARD WIREDU, BAMFORD-ADDO AND CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JJSC', '1994', 'Supreme', 'APPIAH II v BOAKYE     Practice and procedure—Pleadings—Striking out—Court granted discretion under Orders 25, r 4 and 32, r 6 of LN 140A to summarily dismiss cases manifestly frivolous and vexations— Determination to be based solely on pleadings—Circumstances in which judicial discretion exercisable—Action by plaintiff founded on alleged renunciation of family ties by— defendant—Defendant denying all important and material facts pleaded by plaintiff—Issue determinable only after evidence and also raising important issues of law—Application by defendant to dismiss action for lack of reasonable cause of action—Whether trial judge justified in granting application—High Court (Civil Procedure,) Rules, 1954 (LN 140A), Orders 25, r 4 and 32, r 6.', 'FRANCOIS', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1994-01-01', 'Practice and procedure'),
(1196, 'ASOKWA AND ANOTHER v THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/ASOKWA AND ANOTHER v THE REPUBLIC [1993­94] 1 GLR 549—554.pdf', 'Yes', 'ESSIEM, AMUAH AND FORSTER JJA.', '1994', 'Appeal', 'ASOKWA AND ANOTHER v THE REPUBLIC    Courts—Court of Appeal—Jurisdiction—Petition for review pending before National Public Tribunal (NPT)—NPT vested with review jurisdiction only in respect of decisions given in exercise of original jurisdiction— Appeal by appellants from decision of Brong-Ahafo Regional Public Tribunal dismissed by NPT—NPT subsequently assuming jurisdiction to review its decision on petition by appellants—Case pending before NPT at time of abolition transferred by Chief Justice to Court of Appeal—Whether Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain case—Public Tribunals Law, 1984 (PNDCL 78), ss 5 (1) and 19(2)—Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) —Constitution, 1992, Sched 1. s 7(4).', 'ESSIEM', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1994-07-27', 'Jurisdiction'),
(1197, 'BARAKE v BARAKE', '', '../links/cases/BARAKE v BARAKE [1993­94] 1 GLR 635—668.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1990', 'High Court', 'BARAKE v BARAKE    Mohammedan law—Mohammedan marriage—Ingredients of—Claim by respondent-husband that marriage to petitioner-wife Mohammedan marriage—Failure by respondent to prove ingredients of Mohammedan marriage—Whether marriage between parties Mohammedan marriage.\r\n\r\nMohammedan law—Mohammedan marriage—Proof of—Requirements for registration of marriage under Cap 129—Marriage of parties neither satisfying requirements of Mohammedan marriage nor registered under Cap 129—Whether marriage valid Mohammedan marriage—Marriage of Mohammedans Ordinance, Cap 129 (1951 Rev), ss 3, 6 (1) and (10) and 9.', 'BROBBEY J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1990-06-25', 'Mohammedan law—Mohammedan marriage'),
(1198, 'ABAKAH v ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOTHER', '', '../links/cases/ABAKAH v ATTORNEY­GENERAL AND ANOTHER [1993­94] 1GLR 325 – 331..pdf', 'Yes', 'ABBAN, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, HAYFRON-BENJAMIN AND AMPIAH JJSC', '1994', 'Supreme', 'ABAKAH v ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOTHER    Constitutional law – Pension - Retiring awards of superior court justices - Justices retiring under article 155(1) of Constitution, 1992 entitled to person equal to “salary” while in service - Determination of constituents of salaries - Article 71(3) defining “salaries” to include allowances, facilities, privileges, retiring benefits or awards - Definition exclusively for guidance of committee appointed by President under article 71(1) to determine service conditions of specified public servants - Use of “salary” in article 155(1) neither ambiguous nor equivocal - Whether “salary” in article 155(1) to be given natural, ordinary, everyday meaning - Whether “salary” including use of official car and bungalow or commensurate equivalent - Scope of entitlements of superior court  judge retiring under article 155(1) - Constitution, 1992, arts 71(1) and (3) and 155(1).', 'ABBAN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1994-07-19', 'Pension'),
(1199, 'ANSU-AGYEI AND OTHERS v FIMAH AND OTHERS', '', '../links/cases/ANSU­AGYEI AND OTHERS v FIMAH AND OTHERS [1993­94] 1 GLR 299—307..pdf', 'Yes', 'FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, HAYFRON-BENJAMIN AND AMPIAH JJSC', '1994', 'Supreme', 'ANSU-AGYEI AND OTHERS v FIMAH AND OTHERS       Chieftaincy—Swearing of oath of allegiance—Prevention by Omanhene—Proper party to be sued—Omanhene president of traditional council—Refusal of Omanhene to permit alleged krontihene to swear oath of allegiance to him—Oath purely customary and responsibility of Omanhene and Omanhene—Action by alleged krontihene and others against Omanhene and traditional council, among others, in respect of refusal—Whether joinder of traditional council to action proper.', 'FRANCOIS', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1994-07-26', 'Chieftaincy'),
(1200, 'ESSIEM v THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/ESSIEM v THE REPUBLIC [1993­94] 1 GLR 457—463..pdf', 'Yes', 'OFORI-BOATENG, ADJABENG AND LUTTERODT JJA', '1994', 'Supreme', 'ESSIEM v THE REPUBLIC     Courts—Court of Appeal—Jurisdiction—Cases “pending” before public tribunals at time of their abolition—Chief Justice empowered to transfer cases to appropriate courts—Statutory definition of “pending”—Whether meaning of “pending” embracing both statutory and common law definitions of word—Applicant convicted by Greater Accra Regional Public Tribunal—No appeal filed by applicant with regional or National Public Tribunal—Applicant seeking extension of time to file petition of appeal ten months after abolition of public tribunal system—Whether applicant’s appeal pending before tribunals at time of their abolition—Whether Chief Justice can transfer case to Court of Appeal—Constitution, 1992, Sched 1, s 7(1) and (4) —Courts Act 1993 (Act 459), s 115(11).', 'OFORI-BOATENG', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1994-02-03', 'Jurisdiction'),
(1201, 'ADDO v. KUMI', '', '../links/cases/ADDO v. KUMI.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1970', 'High Court', 'ADDO v. KUMI  Contempt of court—Offence—Ingredients—Interference with or obstruction of the course of administration of justice—Appeal against judgment—Operation as stay of execution—Execution of judgment pending appeal—Whether the act of execution amounts to contempt of court—High Court (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) Rule, 1969 (L.I. 619).', 'QUASHIE-SAM J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1970-07-31', 'Contempt of court'),
(1202, 'ADJEIODA v. C.F.A.O.', '', '../links/cases/ADJEIODA v. C.F.A.O..pdf', 'Yes', '', ' 197', 'High Court', 'ADJEIODA v. C.F.A.O. Practice and procedure—Judgment-debt and costs—Leave to go into execution Delay of seventeen-and-a-half years in enforcing judgment-debt—Burden of proving debt already satisfied—Whether debt statute-barred under United Kingdom Act of 1833 or 1874—Whether right to sue under judgment distinct from right to issue execution—Circumstances in which court will exercise discretion in favour of applicant—Whether interest on debt awardable—Real Property Limitation Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27), s. 40—Real Property Limitation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict., c. 57), s. 8—Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A/54), Order 42, r. 22 (a)', 'ABBAN J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-02-05', 'BANKING AND FINANCE'),
(1203, 'ADUNNA AND OTHERS v. MFUM ', '', '../links/cases/ADUNNA AND OTHERS v. MFUM.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1970', 'High Court', 'ADUNNA AND OTHERS v. MFUM  Practice and procedure—Undefended list—Unliquidated demand—Action for specified amount of damages in tort action —Whether "a debt or liquidated money demand”—Whether such action could properly be placed in the undefended list—Courts Ordinance, Cap. 4 (1951 Rev.), Sched. II, Order 2, r. 9.', 'TAYLOR J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1970-12-08', 'Practice and procedure'),
(1204, 'AHIABLE ALIAS VIVOR AND OTHERS v. DOSU AND OTHERS', '', '../links/cases/AHIABLE ALIAS VIVOR AND OTHERS v. DOSU AND OTHERS.pdf', 'Yes', 'LASSEY AND JIAGGE JJ.A.', '1971', 'Appeal', 'AHIABLE ALIAS VIVOR AND OTHERS v. DOSU AND OTHERS Presumption—Ownership—Crops found on land—Whether owner of land prima facie owner of crops found thereon.', 'AZU CRABBE', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-04-05', 'OWNERSHIP'),
(1205, 'AMOAH AND OTHERS v WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL AND OTHERS', '', '../links/cases/AMOAH AND OTHERS v WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1970', 'High Court', ' AMOAH AND OTHERS v WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL AND OTHERS Statutory power—Statutory body—Examinations council—Exercise of discretionary Powers—Power to conduct examinations—Candidates involved in irregularities in the course of examinations—Power to cancel the results of the examinations—Whether the courts have the power to review the exercise of discretionary powers by council—West African Examinations Council Act, 1970 (Act 332), ss. 6 (b) and 22.', 'ANNAN J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1970-11-13', 'EDUCATION');
INSERT INTO `courtrulings` (`id`, `title`, `content`, `link`, `isshow`, `author`, `date`, `courttype`, `summary`, `presiding`, `casetype`, `subjectmatter`, `caseno`, `counsel1`, `counsel2`, `courtname`, `caseDate`, `subjectmattertitle`) VALUES
(1206, 'AMOAH v THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/AMOAH v THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1971', 'High Court', 'AMOAH v THE REPUBLIC Criminal law and procedure—Punishment—Intent to keep accused in prison—Imposition of an option of a fine or imprisonment—Fine beyond means of accused—Accused forced to serve term of imprisonment—Whether proper.', 'MENSA BOISON J.', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-04-30', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(1207, 'AMO-MENSAH v. OWUSU', '', '../links/cases/AMO-MENSAH v. OWUSU.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1970', 'High Court', 'AMO-MENSAH v. OWUSU Practice and procedure—Attachment—Partnership property—Application by partner to remove attachment levied against other partner which included partnership property—Proper Order under which to proceed - Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 57 and Order 70, r. 1.', 'TAYLOR J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1970-01-19', 'PARTNERSHIP'),
(1208, 'ANIOMEGA AND OTHERS v. AHIABOR AND OTHERS', '', '../links/cases/ANIOMEGA AND OTHERS v. AHIABOR AND OTHERS.pdf', 'Yes', ' C.J. JIAGGE AND ARCHER JJ.A.', '1970', 'Appeal', 'ANIOMEGA AND OTHERS v. AHIABOR AND OTHERS Judgment—Parties—Rights of—Adjudication by court of competent jurisdiction—Variation of a Divisional Court award by a native court—Whether the parties voluntarily consented to the variation—Effect of variation—Circumstances in which matter may be re-opened by a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.', 'AZU CRABBE AG.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1970-02-16', 'ADJUDICATION'),
(1209, 'ESSILFIE AND ANOTHER v ANAFO VI AND ANOTHER', '', '../links/cases/ESSILFIE AND ANOTHER v ANAFO VI AND ANOTHER.pdf', 'Yes', 'FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, BAMFORD-ADDO AND AMPIAH JJSC.', '1994', 'Appeal', 'ESSILFIE AND ANOTHER v ANAFO VI AND ANOTHER  Practice and procedure—Appeal—Notice of appeal—Defective notice—Omission by appellants to indicate grant of leave to appeal, name of counsel, addresses for service and particulars of misdirection on notice of appeal—Evidence on record of appeal of grant of leave—Name and addresses identifiable from record of appeal—Whether omissions fatal to appeal—Consequence of omission to state particulars—Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (CI 13), Sched 1, form 1.', 'FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1994-03-04', 'Chieftaincy'),
(1210, 'ADOMAKO v APPENTENG', '', '../links/cases/ADOMAKO v APPENTENG [1993­94] 1 GLR 81—88.pdf', 'Yes', 'ESSIEM, ADJABENG AND BROBBEY JJA', '1994', 'Appeal', 'ADOMAKO v APPENTENG     Practice and procedure—Pleadings—Issues for trial—Substitution—Principle in Dam v Addo prescribing substitution of case contrary to pleadings—Whether principle applicable where new case based on pure point of law or binding decided case—Action against trustee for conversion of trust money brought under section 15(1) of NRCD 54—Preliminary objection that action statute-barred by six-year limitation period under section—Trial judge overruling objection on ground that action maintainable under section 15(4) of NRCD 54—None of parties basing case on section 15(4) of NRCD 54—Whether High Court justified in suo motu applying section 15(4) of NRCD 51 to overrule objection—Limitation Decree, 1972 (NRCD 54), s 15(1) and (4).', 'ESSIEM', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1994-01-27', 'Practice and procedure'),
(1211, 'ANKOMAH-SEY v. EMBRA-QUANSAH', '', '../links/cases/ANKOMAH-SEY v. EMBRA-QUANSAH.pdf', 'Yes', 'LASSEY AND SOWAH JJ.A.', '1971', 'Appeal', 'ANKOMAH-SEY v. EMBRA-QUANSAH Administration of estates—Letters of administration—Grant of representation—Law applicable—Customary law or Marriage Ordinance—Intestate married under Marriage Ordinance after dissolution of two customary marriages—Subsequent marriage under customary law after dissolution of Ordinance marriage—No issue of Ordinance marriage—Intestate survived by issues of customary marriage—Whether children of customary marriages entitled to grant in preference to customary successor—Marriage Ordinance, Cap. 127 (1951 Rev.), s. 48 (1).', 'AZU CRABBE J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-07-05', ' Marriage Ordinance'),
(1212, 'ANNOR II AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/ANNOR II AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1971', 'High Court', 'ANNOR II AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC Criminal law and procedure—Basic rate—Refusal to pay—Charge of wilful neglect to pay annual basic rate—Plea of justification—Statutory obligation of local council to provide amenities—Failure to provide amenities—Whether accused justified in refusing to pay rate—Local Government Act, 1961 (Act 54), s. 96—Local Government (Jomoro Local Council) Establishment Instrument, 1962 (E.I. 197).', 'EDUSEI  J.', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-07-30', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(1213, 'ANTWI AND ANOTHER v. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/ANTWI AND ANOTHER v. THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1971', 'High Court', 'ANTWI AND ANOTHER v. THE REPUBLIC Criminal law and procedure—Forgery—Misrepresentation—Entry of name of fictitious person in pay voucher as a means of claiming for extra work actually done—Whether forgery or any other crime committed — Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), ss. 159 and 164.', 'KORANTENG-ADDOW J.', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-04-07', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(1214, 'APPENTENG MENSAH & CO. LTD. v. ALPRO INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS LTD. ', '', '../links/cases/APPENTENG MENSAH & CO. LTD. v. ALPRO INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1971', 'High Court', 'APPENTENG MENSAH & CO. LTD. v. ALPRO INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS LTD.  Trade mark—Register—Rectification—Application to rectify register made to the court rather than to registrar—Whether the words "No action concerning the trade mark in question is pending in the Court" are intended to oust the jurisdiction of the court—Trade Marks Act, 1965 (Act 270), ss. 32 (1) and 50—Trade Marks Regulations, 1970 (L.I. 667), 3rd Sched.,  Form TM-No. 24.', 'HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-03-18', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Trade Marks'),
(1215, 'DZASIMATU AND OTHERS v DOKOSI AND OTHERS', '', '../links/cases/DZASIMATU AND OTHERS v DOKOSI AND OTHERS [1993­94] 1 GLR 463—477.pdf', 'Yes', 'FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, CHARLES HAFYFRON-BENJAMIN AND AMPIAH JJSC', '1994', 'Supreme', 'DZASIMATU AND OTHERS v DOKOSI AND OTHERS; Customary law—Dispute resolution—Arbitration or negotiated settlement—Essential requirements for binding arbitration—Dispute between K clan and O clan over entitlement to elect and install occupant of mankrado stool—Dispute submitted by parties first to RD and later TAT VI for resolution—Neither RD nor TAT VI disinterested persons—No evidence on manner of proceedings—Whether proceedings arbitration or negotiated settlement—Decision of TAT VI in favour of K clan superseding earlier one of RD in favour of O clan—Whether K clan owners of mankrado stool.', 'FRANCOIS', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1994-03-02', 'Customary law—Dispute resolution'),
(1216, 'GHANA BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v WARD-BREW ', '', '../links/cases/GHANA BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v WARD­BREW [1993­94] 2 GLR 509—517..pdf', 'Yes', '', '1990', 'High Court', 'GHANA BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v WARD-BREW   Courts—High Court—Jurisdiction—Ouster clauses—Action by respondent in High Court for declaration that his disqualification from contesting elections of applicant association on account of his attendance at public tribunals in defiance of associations resolution invalid—Action resisted on the basis that respondent failed to avail himself of domestic remedies in regulation 8 of regulations of association governing elections—Action involving important legal and constitutional questions—Whether jurisdiction of court ousted on account of provisions of regulation  8 of association governing elections.', 'OMARI-SASU J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1990-08-20', 'Practice and procedure—Pleadings'),
(1217, 'ASARE v. BROBBEY AND OTHERS', '', '../links/cases/ASARE v. BROBBEY AND OTHERS,.pdf', 'Yes', 'SOWAH AND ARCHER JJ.A.', '1971', 'Appeal', 'ASARE v. BROBBEY AND OTHERS Practice and procedure—Pleadings—Omission—Failure to plead non-compliance with statutory provision—Failure to register a mortgage deed relating to land under land Registry Act—Deed invalid by non-registration—Issue of non-registration was not pleaded but raised in course of address—Whether the court can entertain the issue—Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122), s. 24 (1)—Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 19, r. 16.', 'SIRIBOE J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-07-19', 'LAND REGISTRY ACT'),
(1218, 'ASIAMA AND OTHERS v. ADJABENG AND OTHERS', '', '../links/cases/ASIAMA AND OTHERS v. ADJABENG AND OTHERS.pdf', 'Yes', 'ANIN AND ARCHER JJ.A.', '1971', 'Appeal', 'ASIAMA AND OTHERS v. ADJABENG AND OTHERS Estoppel—Per rem judicatam—Judgment—Judgment overruled or subject-matter of dispute not covered by judgment cannot constitute estoppel—Findings of a forest reserve inquiry superseded by findings of another inquiry—Whether previous findings capable of constituting estoppel.', 'SIRIBOE J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-05-17', 'Estoppel'),
(1219, 'ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. DADEY', '', '../links/cases/ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. DADEY.pdf', 'Yes', 'APALOO AND JIAGGE JJ.A.', '1971', 'Appeal', 'ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. DADEY Vicarious liability—Course of employment—Proper test—Fire service vehicle used to drive an employee home—Unauthorised act—Whether master vicariously liable.', 'AZU CRABBE', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-01-25', 'EMPLOYMENT; Other Employment: HEALTH; Health and safety at work'),
(1220, 'ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. LEVANDOWSKY & B.A.S.E. GROUP', '', '', 'Yes', 'ANIN AND ARCHER JJ.A.', '1971', 'Appeal', 'ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. LEVANDOWSKY & B.A.S.E. GROUP Practice and procedure—Parties—Misdescription—Foreign partnership firm not carrying on business in Ghana suing in firm name—Similar writ in England would have been rejected at the registry—Whether writ null and void—Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 48A, r. 1; Order 74.', 'SIRIBOE J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-05-03', 'PARTNERSHIP'),
(1221, 'ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. LEVANDOWSKY & B.A.S.E. GROUP', '', '../links/cases/ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. LEVANDOWSKY & B.A.S.E. GROUP.pdf', 'Yes', 'ANIN AND ARCHER JJ.A.', '1971', 'Appeal', 'ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. LEVANDOWSKY & B.A.S.E. GROUP Practice and procedure—Parties—Misdescription—Foreign partnership firm not carrying on business in Ghana suing in firm name—Similar writ in England would have been rejected at the registry—Whether writ null and void—Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 48A, r. 1; Order 74.', 'SIRIBOE J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-05-03', 'PARTNERSHIP'),
(1222, 'AVEGAVI AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC ', '', '../links/cases/AVEGAVI AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', 'SOWAH AND ANIN JJ.A.', '1971', 'Appeal', 'AVEGAVI AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC Criminal law and procedure—Previous convictions—Cross-examination to prove—Conduct of defence reasonably requiring the making of injurious reflections or imputations on the witnesses for the prosecution—Whether accused person can be cross-examined as to his previous convictions—Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), s. 129 (5).', 'SIRIBOE J.S.C.', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-03-26', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(1223, 'BAAH  LTD. v. SALEH BROTHERS ', '', '../links/cases/BAAH  LTD. v. SALEH BROTHERS.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1970', 'High Court', 'BAAH  LTD. v. SALEH BROTHERS Proof—Averment in pleadings—Uncorroborated evidence—Averment denied—Averment repeated on oath without any corroborating evidence—Whether sufficient proof.\r\n\r\n', 'ABBAN J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '0000-00-00', 'FINANCE'),
(1224, 'BADU v. ATTA KWADJO AND OTHERS', '', '../links/cases/BADU v. ATTA KWADJO AND OTHERS.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1971', 'High Court', 'BADU v. ATTA KWADJO AND OTHERS Execution—Immovable property—Attachment without investigating movables—Circumstance in which the rule against attachment of immovable property in execution is applicable—Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 42, r. 46.', 'ANTERKYI J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-07-05', 'INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; Patents'),
(1225, 'BANK OF GHANA v. LABONE WEAVERS ENTERPRISES LTD.', '', '../links/cases/BANK OF GHANA v. LABONE WEAVERS ENTERPRISES LTD..pdf', 'Yes', 'JIAGGE AND ARCHER JJ.A.', '1971', 'Appeal', 'BANK OF GHANA v. LABONE WEAVERS ENTERPRISES LTD. Judicial precedent—Ratio decidendi—Binding part of a case—Rule of law considered necessary for a decision—Failure to discover the ratio decidendi of case—Loss of authority as binding precedent.', 'AZU CRABBE', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-02-22', 'BANKING AND FINANCE'),
(1226, 'BARNES AND OTHERS v. WIRESI XIV', '', '../links/cases/BARNES AND OTHERS v. WIRESI XIV.pdf', 'Yes', 'SOWAH AND ARCHER JJ.A.', '1970', 'Appeal', 'BARNES AND OTHERS v. WIRESI XIV Chieftaincy—Traditional Council—Adjudication of—Interim order of seizure of property made by traditional council— Orders not envisaged by provisions of the Chieftaincy Act, 1961—Whether council competent to make such an order—Chieftaincy Act, 1961 (Act 81), s. 46 (1).', 'APALOO', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1970-12-07', 'CHIEFTAINCY'),
(1227, 'BARNES v. BARNES', '', '../links/cases/BARNES v. BARNES.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1971', 'High Court', 'BARNES v. BARNES Husband and wife—Divorce—Cruelty—Single acts not amounting to cruelty—Whether course of conduct looked at as a whole constituted cruelty.', 'EDUSEI  J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-01-15', 'Marriage Ordinance'),
(1228, 'BENNEH v. THE REPUBLIC AND ANOTHER', '', '../links/cases/BENNEH v. THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', 'ANIN  JJ.S.C. AND LASSEY J.A.', ' 197', 'Appeal', 'BENNEH v. THE REPUBLIC AND ANOTHER Courts—Jurisdiction—Unenforceable relief—Injunction against the Republic—Whether the court may grant a relief incapable of being enforced—State Proceedings Act, 1961 (Act 51), ss. 13 (1) proviso (a), (2) and 15 (4).', 'KOI LARBI', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-06-01', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(1229, 'BILLA v. SALIFU', '', '../links/cases/BILLA v. SALIFU.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1971', 'High Court', 'BILLA v. SALIFU Evidence—Admission—Not challenged—Adulteress admitting sleeping with adulterer—Evidence not challenged in cross-examination—Whether failure to challenge in effect an admission of the allegation.', 'TAYLOR J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-04-05', 'CUSTOMARY LAW'),
(1230, 'BLESYN v. BLACK STAR LINE LTD. AND OTHERS ', '', '../links/cases/BLESYN v. BLACK STAR LINE LTD.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1970', 'High Court', 'BLESYN v. BLACK STAR LINE LTD. AND OTHERS  Practice and procedure—Statement of claim—Application to dismiss action—Action for damages for wrongful dismissal—Employment terminated under section 9 (1) of the Constitution, Sched. I—Whether the acts of the President are the acts of the Government for which the Attorney-General is the proper party to sue or be sued—Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140, A), Order 59, r. 9—Constitution, 1969, Sched. I, s. 9 (1).', 'ABOAGYE  J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1970-12-22', 'EMPLOYMENT; Contract of service'),
(1231, 'BONI AND ANOTHER v. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/BONI AND ANOTHER v. THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', 'JIAGGE AND ARCHER JJ.A.', '1970', 'Appeal', 'BONI AND ANOTHER v. THE REPUBLIC  Criminal law and procedure—Issue estoppel—Autrefois acquit—Differences and similarities—Issue estoppel dependent upon determination of facts—Autrefois dependent upon jeopardy—High Court ruling discharging joint accused and ordering separate trials—Accused again jointly charged on same facts—Whether autrefois acquit or issue estoppel applies.', 'AZU CRABBE', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1970-12-21', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(1232, 'BONSU AND ANOTHER v. BONSU', '', '../links/cases/BONSU AND ANOTHER v. BONSU.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1971', 'High Court', 'BONSU AND ANOTHER v. BONSU Practice and procedure—Parties—Joinder—Application by defendants to add further defendants—Objection to application on ground that it would embarrass plaintiff—Failure to specify nature of embarrassment—Whether objection sufficient to disallow joinder—Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 16, r. 11.', 'TAYLOR J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-07-26', 'PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE'),
(1233, 'BRAIMAH v. ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE ', '', '../links/cases/BRAIMAH v. ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE.pdf', 'Yes', 'SOWAH AND ARCHER JJ.A.', '1971', 'Appeal', 'BRAIMAH v. ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE Insurance—Motor vehicle—Repairs to damaged vehicle—Repairs to be made at a reasonable time—Whether insurance companies can be bound to make repairs to vehicle within a specified time.', 'SIRIBOE J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-06-29', 'INSURANCE'),
(1234, 'BUOBUH v. MINISTER OF INTERIOR AND ANOTHER ', '', '../links/cases/BUOBUH v. MINISTER OF INTERIOR AND ANOTHER.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1970', 'High Court', 'BUOBUH v. MINISTER OF INTERIOR AND ANOTHER  Public officers—Minister of Interior—Liability of—Alleged assault by prison officers— Action against Minister of Interior more than three months after alleged assault—Whether Minister of Interior "public officer" such that action brought three months after alleged act statute-barred—Public Officers Act, 1962 (Act 114), ss. 2 (1) (a) and 7.', 'ABOAGYE J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1970-11-17', 'PUBLIC OFFICERS'),
(1235, 'C.F.A.O. v. ZACCA', '', '../links/cases/C.F.A.O. v. ZACCA.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1970', 'High Court', 'C.F.A.O. v. ZACCA Courts—Supreme Court—Appellate jurisdiction—Provision that appeals lie from Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court—Whether appellate jurisdiction extended to appeals from previous Court of Appeal —Constitution, 1969, art. 105(1).', 'ABBAN J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1970-10-30', 'PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE'),
(1236, 'AHEVI v AKOTO IV', '', '../links/cases/AHEVI v AKOTO IV.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1992', 'High Court', 'AHEVI v AKOTO IV    Customary law — Slander — Proof — Burden of proof in actions for defamation — Claim by plaintiff that defendants accusing him of killing and harming people with juju — Evidence only that defendants banning interaction between plaintiff and other citizens of town — Publication usually meant for people committing heinous crimes — Whether defendants liable to plaintiff for slander.', 'ACQUAH J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1992-02-03', 'Customary law — Slander'),
(1237, 'CHARLOTTE OWUSU AND OTHERS v. AGYEPONG', '', '../links/cases/CHARLOTTE OWUSU AND OTHERS v. AGYEPONG.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1970', 'High Court', 'CHARLOTTE OWUSU AND OTHERS v. AGYEPONG Statutes—Construction—Meaning of "father"—Whether it includes person in loco parentis or personal representative of father—Maintenance of Children Act, 1965 (Act 297), ss. 1 and 8.', 'TAYLOR J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1970-12-12', 'CUSTOMARY LAW'),
(1238, 'COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE v. NARTEY  AND OTHERS', '', '../links/cases/COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE v. NARTEY  AND OTHERS.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1971', 'High Court', 'COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE v. NARTEY  AND OTHERS Revenue—Customs and Excise—Payment of penalty—Goods proved to be uncustomed—No proof that party in possession knew that the goods were uncustomed—Whether party liable to pay a penalty of treble the value of the goods—Customs Ordinance, Cap. 167 (1951 Rev.), s. 197 (d) and (e).', 'ABBAN J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-03-26', 'TAXATION; Income Tax'),
(1239, 'CONSOLIDATED AFRICAN SELECTION TRUST LTD v. NKETIA', '', '../links/cases/CONSOLIDATED AFRICAN SELECTION TRUST LTD v. NKETIA.pdf', 'Yes', 'JIAGGE AND SOWAH', '1971', 'Appeal', 'CONSOLIDATED AFRICAN SELECTION TRUST LTD v. NKETIA Contract—Employment—Letter of engagement—Collateral contract—Letter from employer containing general information sent subsequent to specific letter of employment—Terms of general letter capable of derogating from clear stipulations of letter of employment—Whether general letter evidenced another collateral contract of employment.', 'APALOO', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-04-05', 'EMPLOYMENT; Contract of service'),
(1240, 'CRABBE v. CRABBE', '', '../links/cases/CRABBE v. CRABBE.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1971', 'High Court', 'CRABBE v. CRABBE Statutes—Existing law—Not in conformity with Constitution—Meaning of "existing law"—Intention of legislature—When to adhere to natural import of words—Constitution, 1969, art. 126 (4).', 'ABBAN J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-06-18', 'CUSTOMARY LAW'),
(1241, 'HASNEM ENTERPRISES LTD v IBM WORLD TRADE CORPORATION ', '', '../links/cases/HASNEM ENTERPRISES LTD v IBM WORLD TRADE CORPORATION.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1990', 'High Court', 'HASNEM ENTERPRISES LTD v IBM WORLD TRADE CORPORATION   Contract—implied contract—Machine repairs—When manufacturer liable to service product—Plaintiffs purchasing machine from IBM—If light does not go off “call IBM service” inscribed on machine—Meaning of inscription—Parties not adverting to inscription at time of sale—Whether words constituting maintenance agreement between parties.   ', 'BENIN J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1990-05-16', 'Contract'),
(1242, 'IN RE ASANTE (DECD); OWUSU v ASANTE', '', '../links/cases/IN RE ASANTE.pdf', 'Yes', 'ADADE, ABBAN, AMUA-SEKYI, EDWARD WIREDU, BAMFORD-ADDO, CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN AND AMPIAH JJSC', '1993', 'Supreme', 'IN RE ASANTE (DECD); OWUSU v ASANTE    Administration of estates—Letters of administration—Persons entitled to grant—Intestate deceased married under Cap 127—Priority of grant—Deceased survived by widow and nine children—Joint grant made to widow and eldest adult son of deceased by another woman—Subsequent application by customary successor and MO, a concubine of deceased and mother of two minor children of intestate, for joinder—Court granting joint letters to all four applicants—Eldest son of deceased and minor children of MO within the same degree of priority of grant—Whether joinder of MO lawful—Marriage Ordinance, Cap 127 (1951 Rev)—Probate and Administration Rules, 1991 (LI 1515), Order 2, rr7 and 8(2) and (3).', 'ADADE', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-12-14', 'Administration of estates'),
(1243, 'DAKE v. DORWU PRACTICE NOTE', '', '../links/cases/DAKE v. DORWU PRACTICE NOTE.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1970', 'High Court', 'DAKE v. DORWU PRACTICE NOTE Practice and procedure—Attachment—Leave to issue writ of attachment—Whether an applicant who has obtained leave to issue writ of attachment must serve the respondent with all the papers filed in the application—Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 44, r. 2.', 'FRANCIOS J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1970-06-03', 'PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE'),
(1244, 'DANQUAH v. TIMBER & TRANSPORT CO LTD.', '', '../links/cases/DANQUAH v. TIMBER & TRANSPORT CO LTD..pdf', 'Yes', 'JIAGGE AND SOWAH JJ.A.', '1971', 'Appeal', 'DANQUAH v. TIMBER & TRANSPORT CO LTD. Contract—Construction—Implied terms—Circumstance in which term may be implied in a written contract—Evidence indicating that parties intended the terms to be implied—Whether an implied provision for prompt payment on delivery of goods supplied amounts to variation of contract.', 'APALOO J.S.C.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-07-12', 'CONTRACT'),
(1245, 'IN RE BONNEY (DECD); BONNEY v BONNEY', '', '../links/cases/IN RE BONNEY (DECD); BONNEY v BONNEY [1993-94] 1 GLR 610—634.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARCHER CJ, WUAKU, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, EDWARD WIREDU, BAMFORD-ADDO AND CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN', '1993', 'Supreme', 'IN RE BONNEY (DECD); BONNEY v BONNEY     Land law and conveyancing—Oral grant—Registration—Validity of unregistered oral grant—NRCD 175, ss 4—7 requiring registration of oral grants for them to be valid and enforceable—Scheme to commence after Chief Justice has made regulations and appointed official surveyor—No action taken by Chief Justice on scheme—Whether provisions for registration of oral grants operative—Whether unregistered customary gift of house to respondents valid—Conveyancing Decree, 1973 (NRCD 175), ss 6(1) and (3) and 7(1).', 'ARCHER CJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-01-12', 'Land law and conveyancing'),
(1246, 'KASSER v RAZIEL CONSTRUCTION LTD', '', '../links/cases/KASSER v RAZIEL CONSTRUCTION LT2.pdf', 'Yes', 'LAMPTEY, ADJABENG AND FORSTER JJA', '1993', 'Supreme', 'KASSER v RAZIEL CONSTRUCTION LTD     Courts—Jurisdiction—Land title registration—Land dispute in compulsory registration area—PNDCL 152 ousting jurisdiction of courts over land disputes in compulsory registration areas—Law substituting registered deeds in areas subsequently demarcated for compulsory registration with title certificates—Respondent registering deed on land in 1986—Area demarcated for compulsory registration in 1990—Whether courts have jurisdiction over dispute involving land in area—Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (PNDCL 152), s 12.', 'LAMPTEY', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-03-11', 'Land title registration'),
(1247, 'DATSA v. THE REPUBLIC ', '', '../links/cases/DATSA v. THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', '', ' 197', 'High Court', 'DATSA v. THE REPUBLIC  Criminal law and procedure—Charge or indictment—Defective—Particulars disguised as statement of offence—Charge of stealing—No section of Criminal Code stated—Whether court can uphold conviction under general proviso to Act 30, s. 330—Proper course to adopt where no charge disclosed and no offence proved—Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), s. 330 as amended Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1965 (Act 261), s. 7.', 'FRANCOIS J.', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-01-29', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(1248, 'KASSER v RAZIEL CONSTRUCTION LTD', '', '../links/cases/KASSER v RAZIEL CONSTRUCTION LT2.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARCHER CJ, FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS AND AMPIAH JJSC.', '1993', 'Supreme', 'KASSER v RAZIEL CONSTRUCTION LTD   Land title registration—Land dispute—Jurisdiction—Adjudication committee—When registrar obliged to refer land dispute to adjudication committee—Initiation of process by proprietor of land—Action over ownership of land pending in court when area declared registration district in 1990—Plaintiff’s title deed registered under Act 122 in 1986—Defendant’s lease registered under PNDCL 152 in 1992 during pendency of action—Whether mere declaration of registration district automatically vesting jurisdiction over dispute in adjudication committee—Land Registry Act, 1962 (Act 122)—Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (PNDCL 152), ss 11, 13 and 33.', 'ARCHER CJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-06-28', 'Land title registration'),
(1249, 'DOE v. THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/DOE v. THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1971', 'High Court', 'DOE v. THE REPUBLIC Aliens—Deportation—Court recommendation—Alien sentenced to a term of imprisonment with the option of paying a fine—Whether alien liable to deportation—Aliens Act, 1963 (Act 160), s. 12.', 'EDUSEI  J.', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-02-03', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(1250, 'DONKOR v. THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA AND DONKOR v. THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA ', '', '../links/cases/DONKOR v. THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA AND DONKOR v. THE REPUBLIC 1.pdf', 'Yes', 'SIRIBOE, SOWAH, ANIN AND ARCHER JJ.A.', '1970', 'Appeal', 'DONKOR v. THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA AND DONKOR v. THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA  Courts—Jurisdiction—Suits against the Government—Wrongful acts committed by Government of the National Liberation Council "consequent upon" the coup—Whether proceedings barred by transitional provisions of the Constitution—Constitution, 1969, Sched.I, s. 13 (3).', 'APALOO', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1970-07-31', 'CRIMINAL; Criminal Law'),
(1251, 'KORANTENG II AND OTHER v. KLU ', '', '../links/cases/KORANTENG II AND OTHER v.pdf', 'Yes', 'ADADE, ABBAN, AMUA-SEKYI, EDWARD WIREDU AND BAMFORD-ADDO JJSC', '1994', 'Supreme', 'KORANTENG II AND OTHER v. KLU     Practice and procedure — Retrial — Order by Chief Justice — Administrative directive — Validity — Judgment of High Court regularly obtained — Whether Chief Justice’s power of transfer including power to administratively set aside case pending on appeal before Court of Appeal and order retrial — High Court delivering judgment in open court in presence of parties and counsel — Reasoned judgment subsequently lost — Appellant nonetheless filing detailed grounds of appeal — Whether loss of reasoned judgment rendering High Court’s decision invalid — Whether Chief Justice empowered to interfere administratively with judgment — Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372), s 103.', 'ADADE', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1994-04-19', 'Practice and procedure'),
(1252, 'KUENYEHIA and Others v ARCHER and Others  ', '', '../links/cases/KUENYEHIA and Others v ARCHER and Others.pdf', 'Yes', 'ADADE, FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, EDWARD WIREDU, BAMFORD-ADDO AND HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JJSC', '1993', 'Supreme', 'KUENYEHIA and Others v ARCHER and Others     Courts — Supreme Court — Composition — Empanelling of court — Power of Chief Justice — Minimum number of justices to sit on any case in Supreme Court fixed at five except for exercise of review jurisdiction — Oath of allegiance and judicial oath administered to continuing justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal by Chief Justice on coming into force for Constitution, 1992 — Action by plaintiffs for; inter alia, declaration that swearing of oaths to justices by Chief Justice unconstitutional — Court of seven empanelled by Chief Justice to sit on matter — Request by plaintiffs that all justices of Supreme Court excluding Chief Justice be empanelled to hear matter on account of its constitutional importance — Empanelling of Supreme Court sole prerogative of Chief Justice — Whether plaintiffs request sustainable — Constitutional 1992, arts 128(2) and 133.', 'ADADE', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '0000-00-00', 'Supreme Court — Composition'),
(1253, 'DUA v. AFRIYIE AND OTHERS', '', '../links/cases/DUA v. AFRIYIE AND OTHERS.pdf', 'Yes', 'LASSEY AND SOWAH JJ.A.', '1971', 'Appeal', 'DUA v. AFRIYIE AND OTHERS  Moneylending—Moneylender—Rebuttable presumption—Lending money on one occasion with interest raising rebuttable presumption of moneylending—Whether presumption rebutted or buttressed by evidence led—Moneylenders Ordinance, Cap. 176 (1951 Rev.), s. 3.', 'APALOO', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1971-02-22', 'MONEYLENDERS ORDINANCE '),
(1254, 'KWAKU v SERWAH AND OTHERS', '', '../links/cases/KWAKU v SERWAH AND OTHERS.pdf', 'Yes', 'FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, BAMFORD-ADDO AND CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JJSC', '1993', 'Supreme', 'KWAKU v SERWAH AND OTHERS    Practice and procedure—Pleadings—Issues for trial—Substitution of new case by court—Principle in Dam v Addo proscribing substitution proprio motu by court of case contrary to pleadings of parties—Dispute over ownership of house included by testator, KM, in his estate—Both plaintiff and KM, uterine brothers, claiming house as self-acquired property—Trial court finding house built by KM alone but on land as belonging to plaintiff—Plaintiff held by Court of Appeal to have permitted KM to build family house—Whether held by Court of Appeal violating principle in Dam v Addo.    ', 'FRANCOIS', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-05-26', 'Practice and procedure'),
(1255, 'NEEQUAYE AND ANOTHER v OKOE', '', '../links/cases/NEEQUAYE AND ANOTHER v OKO1.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1990', 'High Court', 'NEEQUAYE AND ANOTHER v OKOE    Customary law — Ga Mashie custom — Funeral and burial arrangements — Persons entitled to determine — Death of husband — Control over corpse vested absolutely in wider family — Determinants of type of funeral for deceased — Whether wife or children or both to participate in family discussions on funeral arrangements.', 'LUTTERODT J', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1990-03-02', 'Customary law'),
(1256, 'NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY v INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE', '', '../links/cases/NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY v INSPECTO1.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARCHER CJ, FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, EDWARD WIREDU, BAMFORD-ADDO AND CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JJSC.', '1993', 'Supreme', 'NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY v INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE   Constitutional law—Fundamental rights and freedoms—Freedom of assembly—Restriction on exercise exercise of—Restrictions in interest of "public safety" permissible under article 21(4)(c)—Prerequisites for imposition of restriction—Police imposing restriction on freedom of assembly of plaintiff under NRCD 68 in interest of "public order"—Whether justifiable under article 21(4)(c)—Public Order Decree, 1972 (NRCD 68)—Constitution, 1992, art 21(4) (g) and (c). ', 'ARCHER CJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-11-30', 'Constitutional law'),
(1257, 'NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY v RAWLINGS and ANOTHER ', '', '../links/cases/NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY v RAWLINGS and ANOTHER.pdf', 'Yes', 'ABBAN, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, BAMFORD-ADDO AND AMPIAH JJSC', '1994', 'Supreme', 'NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY v RAWLINGS and ANOTHER   —District Assembly—Appointment of district secretaries—Existing laws regulating operations of district assemblies continued in force by section 23(1) of transitional provisions of Constitution, 1992 until otherwise provided by Parliament under any law—Section 23(1) not qualified in anyway, nor made subject to any provision of Constitution, 1992—Section 23(1) of transitional provisions inconsistent with, inter alia, provisions of article 243 of Constitution, 1992—Validity of section 23(1)—PNDCL 207 existing law regulating operations of district assemblies—Power of appointment of district secretaries under PNDCL 207 transferred to President by virtue of section 28(2) of transitional provisions of Constitution, 1992—President appointing district secretaries pursuant to powers under section 21(1) of PNDCL 207—Whether appointments lawful—Constitution, 1992, arts 1, 11(6), 243(1) and 299—Constitution, 1992, Sched 1, ss 1, 23(1), 28(2), 31(1) and 36(2)—Local Government Law, 1988 (PNDCL 207), s 21(1).', 'ABBAN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1994-05-03', 'Constitutional law'),
(1258, 'NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY v THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND ANOTHER', '', '../links/cases/NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY v THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND ANOTHER.pdf', 'Yes', 'ABBAN, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, EDWARD WIREDU AND AMPIAH JJSC', '1993', 'Supreme', 'NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY v THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND ANOTHER    Constitutional law — District Assembly — Election of district chief executives — Electoral provisions — Persons entitled to vote — Constitution, 1992 vesting power to approve candidates as district chief executives in district assemblies established under Constitution, 1992 — PNDCL 306 empowering district assemblies in existence before Constitution, 1992 came into force to continue in existence until election of district assembly under Constitution, 1992 — Functions of existing district assemblies excluding power to appoint district secretaries, predecessors of chief executives — Whether existing district assemblies competent to hold election to approve candidates as district chief executives — Local Government Law, 1988 (PNDCL 207) — Lord Government (Amendment) Law, 1993 (PNDCL 306) — Constitution, 1992, arts 11(4), 242 and 243.', 'ABBAN', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-09-16', 'Constitutional law'),
(1259, 'NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY v. GHANA BROADCASTING CORPORATION', '', '../links/cases/NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY v. GHANA BROADCASTING CORPORATION.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARCHER CJ, FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, EDWARD WIREDU, BAMFORD-ADDO AND CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JJSC', '1993', 'Supreme', 'NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY v. GHANA BROADCASTING CORPORATION     Constitutional law—Political parties—Access to state-owned media—Nature of right—State obliged under article 55(11) to provide fair opportunity to political parties to present programmes to public by ensuring equal access to state-owned media—Meaning of "equal access"—State-owned media obliged by article 163 to grant fair opportunities and facilities for presentation of divergent views and dissenting opinions—Object of provision—Meaning of "fair"—Burden on state-owned media—Government formed by National Democratic Party (NDC)—Controversy over 1993 budget presented by government—NDC given two hours air-time by defendant state-owned media to defend budget—Defendant refusing request from opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) for equal time to criticise budget—Whether defendant obliged to grant request—Constitution, 1992, arts 55(11) and 163.', 'ARCHER CJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-11-30', 'Constitutional law'),
(1260, 'OGBARMEY-TETTEH v OGBARMEY-TETTEH', '', '../links/cases/OGBARMEY-TETTEH v OGBARMEY-TETTEH.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARCHER CJ, WUAKU, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, EDWARD WIREDU, JOYCE BAMFORD-ADDO AND CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JJSC', '1993', 'Supreme', 'OGBARMEY-TETTEH v OGBARMEY-TETTEH    Practice and procedure—Cross appeal—Time to appeal—Time limit for appeals from final decision three months—Appellant filing appeal against final decision on last day of period—Respondent filing cross appeal one week later—No rule under CI 13 prescribing time limit for cross appeal—Whether section 32 of NRCD 54 applicable to have cross appeal deemed filed on same date as appeal—One decision on both claim and counterclaim—Whether Supreme Court to exercise power to make any order necessary for determining real issue or question in controversy in case—Whether three months limitation period for appeals applicable to cross appeals—Limitation Decree, 1972 (NRCD 54), s 32—Constitution, 1992, art 129(4)—Court of Appeal Rules, 1962 (LI 218), r 32—Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (CI 13), r 23(3).', 'ARCHER CJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-01-12', 'Practice and procedure'),
(1261, 'OSAFO v THE REPUBLIC', '', '../links/cases/OSAFO v THE REPUBLIC.pdf', 'Yes', 'ESSIEM, FORSTER AND ACQUAH JJA', '1994', 'Supreme', 'OSAFO v THE REPUBLIC    Statutes—PNDCL Laws—Commencement—Laws taking effect from date of signature unless otherwise provided in Law—PNDCL 236 made on 24 May 1990—Gazette notification of Law published on 13 July 1990—Appellant charged under PNDCL 236 for offence committed on 25 May 1990—Whether appellant properly charged—Provisional National Defence Council (Establishment) Proclamation, 1981, s 4(5), (6) and (7)—Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions Law, 1990 (PNDCL 236).', 'ESSIEM', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1994-12-22', 'Criminal law and procedure'),
(1262, 'PREMPEH v AGYEPONG', '', '../links/cases/PREMPEH v AGYEPONG.pdf', 'Yes', 'FRANCOIS WUAKU, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS AND BAMFORD-ADDO JJSC', '1993', 'High Court', 'PREMPEH v AGYEPONG     Wills—Construction—Intention of testator—Devolution under statutory or customary law—Section 49(1) and (2) of Act 372 empowering courts for purposes of devolution to be guided by customary or personal law unless contrary intention shown—Deceased excluding the application of customary law to devolution of his estate in draft will—Draft will failing to meet requirements of a will—Whether trial judge justified in accepting failed draft will as samansiw—Whether samansiw has to be death-bed declaration to be effective—Wills Act, 1971 (Act 360)—Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372), s 49(1) and (2).', 'FRANCOIS', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-01-26', 'Wills'),
(1263, 'REPUBLIC v ADU-BOAHEN and ANOTHER', '', '../links/cases/REPUBLIC v ADU.pdf', 'Yes', 'FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, EDWARD WIREDU, CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN, AMPIAH AND KPEGAH JJSC', '1993', 'Supreme', 'REPUBLIC v ADU-BOAHEN and ANOTHER    Constitutional law—Courts—Jurisdiction—Cases "pending" and "partly heard" before public tribunals at time of abolition—Constitution, 1992 coming into force on 7 January 1993 and abolishing public tribunal system six months thereafter—Constitution providing for continuation of only "pending" or "partly heard" cases before public tribunals as at 7 January 1993—Accused persons arraigned before National Public Tribunal (NPT) on charges of disobedience of summons before the coming into force of Constitution, 1992—Proceedings against accused persons advancing only to taking of pleas and reading of statement of facts by prosecution at time of coming into force of Constitution, 1992—Whether case against accused "partly heard" or "pending"—Whether NPT to continue trying accused persons—Whether case referable to Chief Justice for transfer to another court—Constitution, 1992, Sched 1, s 7(1), (3) and (4).', 'FRANCOIS', 'Criminal', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-06-28', 'Constitutional law'),
(1264, 'REPUBLIC v AKENTEN II; EX PARTE YANKYERA ', '', '../links/cases/REPUBLIC v AKENTEN II.pdf', 'Yes', 'KPEGAH JSC, AMUAH AND LUTTERODT JJA', '1993', 'Supreme', 'REPUBLIC v AKENTEN II; EX PARTE YANKYERA    Contempt of court - ditional council - tempt against judicial committee - ther contempt against judicial committee contempt against traditional council - ther contempt surviving subsequent dissolution of judicial committee - eftaincy (Proceedings and Functions) (Traditional Councils) Regulations, 1972 (LI 798), s 13(4).', 'KPEGAH JSC', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-04-08', 'Contempt of court'),
(1265, 'REPUBLIC v ATTORNEY-GENERAL; EX PARTE ABBEY', '', '../links/cases/REPUBLIC v ATTORNEY-GENERAL; EX PARTE ABBEY.pdf', 'Yes', 'AMUAH, BROBBEY AND FORSTER JJA', '1993', 'Appeal', 'REPUBLIC v ATTORNEY-GENERAL; EX PARTE ABBEY     Criminal law and procedure—Indictment or charge—Preferment—Charges of attempted stealing and stealing of cheque of customer—Appellant, accountant with bank, indorsing cheque of customer for payment—Discovery by paying-out cashier that “stop order” written on ledger of account—Significance of intervention of paying-out cashier—Whether charges against appellant valid.', 'AMUAH', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-04-08', 'Criminal law and procedure'),
(1266, 'REPUBLIC v COURT OF APPEAL; EX PARTE APONSAH ', '', '../links/cases/REPUBLIC v COURT OF APPEAL; EX PARTE APONSAH.pdf', 'Yes', 'ADADE, OSEI-HWERE, AIKINS, EDWARD WIREDU AND HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JJSC', '1992', 'Supreme', 'REPUBLIC v COURT OF APPEAL; EX PARTE APONSAH    Legal practitioners—Appearance—Appearance in court on own behalf—Place in court—Legal practitioner party in suit—Legal practitioner fully robed and sitting at bar of court—Whether proper.\r\n\r\nPractice and procedure—Parties—Legal practitioners—Right of audience—Legal practitioner represented by counsel—Appeal before Court of Appeal involving legal practitioner personally as a party—Whether legal practitioner can appear both as party and counsel for himself—Court of Appeal Rules, 1962(LI 218), r 4.', 'ADADE', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1992-02-24', 'Practice and procedure'),
(1267, 'REPUBLIC V HIGH COURT, DENU; EX PARTE AVADALI IV', '', '../links/cases/REPUBLIC V HIGH COURT, DENU; EX PARTE AVADALI IV.pdf', 'Yes', 'ADADE, ABBAN, AMUA-SEKYI, EDWARD WIREDU, BAMFORD-ADDO, CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN AND AMPIAH JJSC', '1993', 'Supreme', 'REPUBLIC V HIGH COURT, DENU; EX PARTE AVADALI IV     Practice and procedure—Writ—Setting aside—Conditional appearance—Objection to jurisdiction—Options available to defendant objecting to jurisdiction—Defendant objecting to jurisdiction of High Court after entry of conditional appearance and before filing defence—Whether defendant obliged to object to jurisdiction only in statement of defence—High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (LN 140A), Order 12, r24.', 'ADADE', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-12-14', 'Practice and procedure'),
(1268, 'REPUBLIC V KORLE GONNO DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GRADE I; EX PARTE AMPOMAH', '', '../links/cases/REPUBLIC V KORLE GONNO DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GRADE I; EX PARTE AMPOMAH.pdf', 'Yes', 'ARCHER CJ, WUAKU, AIKINS, BAMFORD-ADDO AND CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JJSC', '1992', 'Supreme', 'REPUBLIC V KORLE GONNO DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GRADE I; EX PARTE AMPOMAH     Coroner—Inquest—Jurisdiction—Coroner empowered under section 5 of Act 18 to hold inquest on reasonable, suspicion that cause of death unknown—Whether power to hold inquest discretionary or mandatory—Deceased with history of hypertension and diabetes dying soon after admission at hospital—Report on first post-mortem conducted on brain of deceased stating cause of death as cerebrovascular accident—Second post-mortem on rest of body finding no violent marks on body nor poison in samples from body—Second post mortem also finding deceased had suffered from hypertensive heart disease but concluding immediate cause of death "undetermined"—Both reports made available to coroner in police docket—Decision of coroner to hold inquest on ground that cause of death "unknown"—Whether coroner justified in his decision to hold inquest—Coroners [p.221] Act, 1960 (Act 18), s 5.', 'ARCHER CJ', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1992-07-29', 'Practice and procedure'),
(1269, 'REPUBLIC v NATIONAL PUBLIC TRIBUNAL; EX PARTE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ', '', '../links/cases/REPUBLIC v NATIONAL PUBLIC TRIBUNAL.pdf', 'Yes', 'ADADE, FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI, EDWARD WIREDU, CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN, AMPIAH AND KPEGAH JJSC', '1993', 'Supreme', 'REPUBLIC v NATIONAL PUBLIC TRIBUNAL; EX PARTE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR    Constitutional law Supreme Court—Jurisdiction—Invocation of original and supervisory jurisdiction—Waiver of breach of procedure—Failure by applicant to follow procedure for invocation of jurisdiction of Supreme Court—Applicant furthermore—without locus standi in matter in issue—Case however raising constitutional issue of importance—Whether court to determine matter on merits—Public Tribunals Law, 1984 (PNDCL 78), ss 5(6) and (7), 19(2) —(4) and (6) and 20—Constitution, 1992, arts 130(1) (a) and (2) and 132.', 'ADADE', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-06-28', 'Constitutional law'),
(1270, 'REPUBLIC v ZINITEGE', '', '../links/cases/REPUBLIC v ZINITEGE.pdf', 'Yes', 'KPEGAH JSC, AMUAH AND BROBBEY JJA', '1993', 'Supreme', 'REPUBLIC v ZINITEGE    Criminal law and procedure—Murder—Self-defence—Section 37 of Act 29 requiring harm used in self-defence to be reasonably necessary in circumstances—Existence of bad blood between appellant and deceased, his nephew—Parties separated during a quarrel—Deceased later ambushing appellant and attacking him three times with sticks—Appellant seizing stick from deceased during third attack and hitting him on head with it—Deceased dying from injuries—Autopsy report showing that blow killing deceased very severe—Whether defence of self-defence available to appellant—Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), s 37.', 'KPEGAH JSC', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-04-08', 'Criminal law and procedure'),
(1271, 'ABAKAM EFFIANA FAMILY & ORS. v. MBIBADO EFFIANA FAMILY & ORS. ', '', '../links/cases/ABAKAM EFFIANA FAMILY & ORS. v. MBIBADO EFFIANA FAMILY & ORS..pdf', 'Yes', 'GRANVILLE SHARP J.A. AND OLLENNU J..', '1959', 'Appeal', 'ABAKAM EFFIANA FAMILY & ORS. v. MBIBADO EFFIANA FAMILY & ORS.  Land—Long undisturbed possession—Protection against all save better titles—Conflict and confusion in plaintiff’s evidence of tradition.', 'VAN LARE AG. C.J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1959-11-02', 'LAND; Sale of Land'),
(1272, 'ALAGBADE v. AKYEAMPONG', '', '../links/cases/ALAGBADE v. AKYEAMPONG.pdf', 'Yes', 'VAN LARE J.A., AND OLLENNU J.', '1959', 'Appeal', 'ALAGBADE v. AKYEAMPONG Money—Lenders Ordinance, secs. 12(1), 13, 26(1)—Loans Recovery Ordinance, sec. 3(1)—Excessive interest—Failure to supply borrower with copy of memorandum—False statement of principal and interest in memorandum.', 'KORSAH C.J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1959-03-03', 'MONEYLENDERS ORDINANCE'),
(1273, 'AMAH v. KAIFIO', '', '../links/cases/AMAH v. KAIFIO.pdf', 'Yes', '', '1959', 'High Court', 'AMAH v. KAIFIO Family property—Plaintiff not head of family—Implied authority of family to sue—Onus of proof of issues after pleadings.', 'OLLENNU J.', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1959-01-22', 'FAMILY PROPERTY'),
(1274, 'REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE CHINTO ', '', '../links/cases/REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE CHINTO.pdf', 'Yes', 'FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS, BAMFORD-ADDO AND HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JJSC', '1993', 'Supreme', 'REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE CHINTO     Mortgages—Judicial sale—Proper person to sue—Mortgagor using property to secure bank loan to defendant, a third party—Default in repayment by defendant—Options available to bank to realise security—Mortgagor retaining equity of redemption in mortgaged property—Whether mortgagor necessary party to action for judicial sale of mortgaged property—Whether order for judicial sale of mortgaged property obtained by bank in originating summons against defendant only valid—Mortgages Decree, 1972 (NRCD 96), ss. 15 and 18.', 'FRANCOIS', 'Civil', '', '', '', '', '', '1993-05-26', 'Mortgages');
