Page images
PDF
EPUB

provisions of charterparty T. 99 the Shipping Controller within the same building as their picture-house at Birmingme liable to pay to the claimants "the ascertained ham. One of the gentlemen ordered and was supplied with e" of the vessel at the time of the loss. The value of two small cups of coffee, for each of which he was charged Persier in the British market at that date was 110,000l., 34d., and six chocolate biscuits, for which he was charged the claimants being a company under Belgian State 3d. each; the other gentleman ordered and was supplied with rol, it was, by reason of the Defence of the Realm several chocolate buscuits, at 3d. each. Complaints were lations, impossible for the claimants to purchase a made of these charges to the Profiteering Committee as ish vessel to replace the Persier. The price in the excessive, whereupon notices were served upon the comet of neutral tonnage was 651. per ton, which for a pany to appear to answer the complaints. These rules were of the size of the Persier would amount to 432,000l. then obtained to prohibit the committee from proceeding in claimants contended that that sum, or, alternatively, the matter on the ground that the charges were not the price paid by the claimants, namely, 129,500l., was the price of the articles merely, but included permission to use tained value of the Persier at the time of the loss. the café and all its facilities and amenities. umpire awarded 110,000l.

A. Wright K.C. and Simey for the claimants.

Profiteering Act, 1919, s. 1, sub-s. 1: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board of Trade shall have power in respect of any article to which this Act applies-.

- Ernest Pollock S.-G. and Dunlop K.C. for the re- (b) to receive and investigate complaints that a profit is Hent.

Cur. adv. vult.

The

7. 25. SANKEY J. The answer to the owners' conten-
is that the amount to be paid to them under the
act is not a sum which will enable them to replace the
or the sum for which they bought her, but the
rtained value of the steamer at the time of her loss,"
has been found by the umpire to be 110,000l.
s are not entitled to obtain the sum necessary to
ase a vessel for nearly half a million in a neutral
t because they are personally disqualified from pur-
ng one in the British market. The ascertained value
vessel, found to be 110,000l., is the utmost the owners
have been able to obtain for her, had they been
h subjects, and I cannot think they are entitled to
ree times as much because they are not British sub-
In effect the owners claim a very large sum of money,
ecause it is the ascertained value of the vessel, but
e it is the ascertained value of some other vessel,
y, a similar vessel in the neutral market. In my
n their contention is wholly without foundation, and
rard in favour of the Controller must be upheld, with

titors for claimants: William A. Crump & Son. tor for respondent: Treasury Solicitor.

D.

F. O. R.

Nov. 24.

REX V. BIRMINGHAM PROFITEERING COMMITTEE.
arte PROVINCIAL CINEMATOGRAPH THEATRES, LTD.
REX T. SAME. Ex parte SAME.

ering Sale of "article "-Coffee and chocolate
its supplied in restaurant-Profiteering Act, 1919
10 Geo. 5, c. 66), s. 1—Order of Board of Trade, 1919,
d. II.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

being or has been since the passing of this Act made or sought on the sale of the article . . . which is, in view of all the circumstances, unreasonable, and on any such complaint they may by order, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, either dismiss the complaint or—(i) declare the price which would yield a reasonable profit; and (ii) require the seller to repay to the complainant any amount paid by the complainant in excess of such price."

Sub-s. 7: "This Act applies to any article or class of article to which it is applied by order of the Board of Trade. . . .'

[ocr errors]

Sect. 2 authorises the Board of Trade to set up and to delegate their powers under the Act to local committees.

By an Order of the Board of Trade, dated September 11, 1919, the Profiteering Act was declared to apply to various articles and classes of enumerated articles. By the second schedule to that Order a large number of articles of food were brought within the Act, including "biscuits" and "coffee."

J. G. Hurst K.C. (Birkett and Bertram Long with him) for the committee showed cause and contended that the transactions in question amounted in law to the sale of articles which thus came within the Act. It was for the committee to say what amount of the sum paid was attributable to the services rendered, the nature of the accommodation, etc. [He was stopped.]

Branson for the Board of Trade.

Rigby Swift K.C. (Sir Richard Muir and Caradoc Rees with him) in support of the rules submitted (1) that the Profiteering Act did not apply to articles of food supplied in a restaurant for consumption therein. The articles enumerated in the second schedule to the Order of the Board of Trade contemplated sales over the counter. (2) The transactions were not "sales" in the ordinary sense. The amount paid for the amenities accompanying the transactions prevented them from being the sales of articles in the

s nisi for prohibition to the Birmingham Profiteering ordinary sense. In Rex v. Wood Green Profiteering Com

ttee.

ttober, 1919, two gentlemen visited the café belonging Provincial Cinematograph Theatres Company, and

mittee; Ex parte Boots Cash Chemists (Southern), Ltd. (ante, p. 291), the fact that services were rendered in connexion with the supply of an article was held not to

prevent the transaction being the sale of an article. Here, in addition to services rendered, there were the privileges of using the facilities of the premises for the consumption of the articles. (3) The words "coffee" and "biscuits" as used in the schedule did not cover a cup of coffee or chocolate biscuits.

Hurst K.C. replied.

EARL OF READING C.J. said that on behalf of the applicants three grounds had been put forward upon which the rules should be made absolute: (1) that the Profiteering Act, 1919, did not apply to articles of food sold in a restaurant for consumption on the premises; (2) that the transactions in question were not the sales of articles, because something else was included; and (3) that the articles in question did

not come within the second schedule to the Order of the Board of Trade. As to the first point, he could find nothing to justify the contention that the Act and Order were not intended to apply to the sale of articles of food in a restaurant for consumption on the premises. If Parliament had so intended, it could easily have said so in terms. Similarly, with regard to the second point, there was nothing in the Act or Order to justify the Court in saying that the sale of an article ceased to be a sale within the Act if it included something in addition. When the conclusion was arrived at that there was the sale of an article, the circumstances of the sale, including the extra amenities conferred, were to be taken into account by virtue of s. 1, sub-s. 1 (b) of the Act in deciding whether the price was reasonable or not. That was for the committee, and was not a matter for prohibition. As to the third point, the questions were (a) whether the sale of cups of coffee and (b) whether the sale of chocolate biscuits came within the second schedule to the Order. The schedule must be construed according to the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used. As to (a) he agreed with Mr. Rigby Swift that a cup of coffee did not come within the natural and ordinary meaning of "coffee" as used in the schedule. As to (b), applying the same rule of construction, he was unable to say that chocolate biscuits were not "biscuits" as used in the schedule. "Biscuits was a generic term like "cakes and confectionery," which were also mentioned in the

schedule. The result was that the rule which was concerned with the sale of cups of coffee and chocolate biscuits would be made absolute as to the sale of the cups of coffee, while it would be discharged as to the sale of the chocolate biscuits; in the other case, which was concerned solely with the sale of chocolate biscuits, the rule would be discharged.

DARLING and SANKEY JJ. agreed.

Solicitors for rules: Hyman Isaacs, Lewis & Mills.

Solicitors for Profiteering Committee: Sharpe, Pritchard

& Co., for F. H. C. Wiltshire, Birmingham.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Rule nisi for prohibition to the Manchester Profiteeri Committee.

In October, 1919, a party of four gentlemen went to first-class refreshment and grill room at the Victoria Stat: Manchester, belonging to the Lancashire and Yorkshire R

order on to the cooks. A meal was thereupon specially co way Co. They gave an order to the waiter, who passed and prepared to the customers' order. They had se sausages, chipped potatoes, four pieces of dry bread, a dozen small cakes and a teapot between the four. part of the food supplied except the bread and the Fre pastries was ready cooked. The charge was 12s. 1d. bill was made up as follows: Grill 6s., vegetables 2s., * 1s. 9d., cheese 4d., afternoon tea 2s. A complaint in reof the charges as being excessive was made to the Prot ing Committee, whereupon a notice was served upor railway company to appear to answer the complaint. rule was then obtained to prohibit the committee from ceeding with the hearing of the complaint on the gr that the articles comprised in the subject-matter of the plaint as a whole did not come within Sched. 2 of the of the Board of Trade, P.A.D. 1, dated September 11, 1 and that the articles described as six small cakes wer separately complained of.

The relevant sections of the Profiteering Act, 1912. set out ante, p. 321.

By an order of the Board of Trade dated Septembe 1919, the Profiteering Act was declared to apply to va articles and classes of enumerated articles. By the s schedule to that Order a large number of articles of were brought within the Act, including "ready cook prepared food" and "fresh vegetables (except onions)

Barrington Ward K.C. (du Parcq with him) for the mittee showed cause, and contended that the char 12s. 1d. was not for a meal as a whole but for a num articles separately supplied, and that inasmuch as so those articles came within the Act a writ of prohi would not lie even although others of the articles su were not within the Act. [He was stopped.]

Slesser for the complainant.

Branson for the Board of Trade.

Holman Gregory K.C. (Sir Richard Muir with Solicitor for Board of Trade: Solicitor to the Board of support of the rule contended that the charge of 1

Trade.

J. S. H.

was for a meal as a whole. The only articles within were the small cakes, and they were not separately plained of. An order to cook and supply sausage potatoes was not a sale of articles within the meaning

1. Sausages did not come within the schedule to the der, as they were not "ready cooked or prepared food." pped potatoes did not come within the term "fresh getables." As all the articles comprising the meal, except e cakes, were outside the jurisdiction of the committee, ey could not enter upon the hearing of the complaint thout exceeding their jurisdiction.

THE COURT (Earl of Reading C.J., Sankey and Salter JJ.) scharged the rule.

EARL OF READING C.J. said that the application for the le nisi was made on the ground that the subject-matter the complaint as a whole did not come within Sched. 2 of Order of the Board of Trade. In other words, it was id that supplying a meal to a person was not supplying e articles comprising the meal to that person within the aning of the Profiteering Act. The question the Court d to consider was whether the local Profiteering Committee d jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. If the articles prising the meal were looked at separately, there was no ubt that the cakes came within the schedule to the Order, d that was sufficient to show that there were some articles pplied which came within the jurisdiction of the comttee. It had, however, been argued on behalf of the raily company that the Court could not look at the separate ticles comprising the meal, but must say that when a meal s supplied at a restaurant the Profiteering Committee had jurisdiction to entertain a complaint as regards the meal. was further contended that the giving of an order in a taurant to cook a particular article of food, even though article of food in the raw condition came within the izle, was not a proper subject of complaint under the The Court had recently decided in The King v. kingham Profiteering Committee, ante, p. 321, that there #nothing in the Act to indicate that it was not intended apply to articles sold in restaurants, and therefore it ld not be said that the fact that the article was sold in a taurant ousted the jurisdiction of the committee. Was the sale of a meal or was it the sale of the articles compristhe meal? In his judgment it was the sale of the articles ich made up the meal. It made no difference that a single rge was made for what was supplied; the burden was on the vendor to show how the charge was made up. The showed how the charge of 12s. 1d. was made up. Some the articles, viz., the cakes, were actually mentioned in schedule. The main article in the bill was the ages, and in his judgment they came within the dule as "ready cooked or prepared food." In his nion it could make no difference whether a person went Da shop or restaurant, and, finding food ready cooked, rchased it, or whether he went into a shop or restaurant 1, not finding the food ready cooked or not cooked in the y he liked, gave an order to have it cooked. The words eady cooked or prepared food" were of very wide applica1. and covered the present case. The sausages, therefore, his opinion, came within the schedule. That meant that icles costing 7s. 9d. out of the 12s. 1d. came within the edule. He thought that they must look at the sale of the icles separately, and that it was not enough to say that as the sale of a meal. The Court had already held that

the sale of a bottle of medicine made up from a prescription was the sale of an article. Once it was established that there was jurisdiction the Court would not prohibit a committee from proceeding with the hearing of a complaint merely because there were one or two articles in the complaint which were not the proper subject-matter of the committee's jurisdiction.

SANKEY and SALTER JJ. agreed.

Rule discharged.

Solicitors for rule: Woodcock Ryland & Parker, for A. de C. Parmiter, Manchester.

Solicitors for complainant: Kenneth Brown, Baker & Baker.

Solicitors for Profiteering Committee: Austin & Austin, for T. Hudson, Manchester.

Solicitor for Board of Trade: Solicitor to Board of Trade. R. F. S.

PROBATE, DIVORCE AND ADMIRALTY

Divorce.

DIVISION.

Nov. 21.

BURNE v. BURNE AND HELVOET. Divorce-Practice-Costs against co-respondent-Damages -Knowledge that respondent is married-Circumstances material for assessment of damages. Husband's petition for divorce.

The petitioner alleged adultery resulting in the birth of a child on May 28, 1918, and subsequent adultery between April, 1918, and January, 1919. The respondent did not appear. The co-respondent admitted the adultery leading to the birth of the child, but denied subsequent adultery. He alleged that at the time of the admitted adultery he did not know that the respondent was a married woman. He also alleged condonation by the husband. The condonation was disproved. The petitioner claimed 2007. damages.

van den Berg for the petitioner.

Cotes-Preedy for the co-respondent.

THE PRESIDENT (Sir H. E. Duke) said that there was no general rule that if at the time when adulterous intimacy first began the co-respondent did not know that the respondent was a married woman he could not be condemned in costs. Costs were in that case, as in all others, in the discretion of the Court. That had been decided by Lord Gorell in Robinson v. Robinson and Wilson, (1898) 78 L. T. 391, and by Hill J. in Norris v. Norris & Smith, [1918] P. 129; and he did not think that there was anything in Bilby v. Bilby and Harrop, [1902] P. 8, against that view.

As to damages, it was clear that evidence as to particular for him. In October, 1918, the husband, having obtai means or profits of the co-respondent was not admissible; evidence of his wife's adultery, filed his petition and but he must bear in mind the general position and tained a decree nisi. He failed to disclose at the hear obligations of the parties and make an award which it would that after discovering his wife's infidelity he had commit be possible for the co-respondent to meet, and which would adultery with A. B., and a child had been born; the husb not defeat its own object, but bring a sum of money from and A. B., who but for this lapse was a respectable wom the co-respondent to be dealt with by the Court. He lived together before and after the decree nisi. The Ki granted a decree nisi with 600l. damages and costs against Proctor intervened.. the co-respondent.

Solicitor for petitioner: T. E. Preston.

Solicitors for co-respondent: Sidney Smith, Son & Leefe.

[blocks in formation]

J. R. B.

Rawlinson K.C. (Harold Smith with him) for the Ki Proctor.

J. A. C. Skinner for the petitioner.

THE PRESIDENT (SIR H. E. DUKE), after stating that was convinced of the bona fides of the petitioner, and not believe that he intended to deceive the Court, said he had come to the conclusion that there were circumsta in this case which warranted the exercise of his jud discretion in the husband's favour: (1) the position of Nov. 21. children whose interest it was to have a home with sanctions of decency, and, so far as possible, of the (2) the interest of A. B. that she should be lawfully marr (3) the case of the respondent, as to whom there wa prospect that a refusal to grant a divorce would have effect of reconciling her to her husband; (4) the case of petitioner, whose interest it was that he should be abl marry and live respectably. He therefore did not res the decree, but allowed the King's Proctor his costs.

Divorce-Husband's petition-Adultery of petitioner-Discretion of Court-Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 85), s. 31.

Husband's petition for divorce.

The parties were married in 1909. There were three children of the marriage born before the war. The husband enlisted early in the war and served abroad until June, 1917. He then returned, and finding that his wife had grossly neglected his children, took them away from her. A. B., old friend, took charge of them

an

Solicitors: Peet & Manduell; The King's Proctor.

J. R.

NOTICE TO SOLICITORS.

LANDLORD AND TENANT. Lessee-Underlease-Surrender by lessee of reversionParol lease by lessor to new tenant-Right of new tenant to sue underlessee for rent-Real Property Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 106), s. 9

With the view of insuring the greatest possible ccuracy and rapidity in the various publications onnected with the LAW REPORTS the Council will Prize bounty-Enemy Transport-“ Armed ship”—Naval

PRIZE COURT.

Prize Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 35), s. 42

RAILWAY.

Rates-Increase-Inequality of charge-Railways Clauses

(Consolidation) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 20), s. 90Practice-Point of law not raised at the trial

SALE BY THE COURT.

e obliged if the Solicitors to whom application is made by any reporter acting for the Council will 3 soon as possible after application furnish the ecessary papers, together with any information in eir power as to the names of the various Solicitors ngaged in the case. At the same time, the Council ankfully acknowledge the assistance they have ready received from so many members of the rofession in furnishing the papers required to Charterparty-Coal cargo-Shipment in United Statesepare accurate reports.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

PAGE

Mistake Reserve price fixed by judge-Lower price by mistake supplied to auctioneer-Property knocked down to highest bidder at undervalue-Refusal of certificate allowing highest bidder as purchaser-Sale of Land by Auction Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 48), s. 7 SHIPPING.

-Prohibition of export-Delay in obtaining licence-
Duty of charterer-Knowledge of shipowner
Collision-Proceeds of sale of ship-Division between
claimants-Absence of limitation proceedings-
Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60),
ss. 503, 504

VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
Contract-Title-Vendor selling as trustee-Trust to
divide-One beneficiary to have 301. more than others—
No express power of sale-Offer to join benefitiaries-
Subsequent repudiation of contract

[ocr errors]

J. C. 328
Astbury J. 330
J. C. 328
K. B. D. 331

- Peterson J. 329

HOUSE OF LORDS.

H. L. (E.) 327

K. B. D. 333

333

328

327

329

333

328

330

VIZCAYA

[blocks in formation]

RECORD OF BUSINESS.

THURSDAY, December 4.

Owners of s.s. Joannis Vatis v. Owners of s.s. Worsley Hall.
Further and fully heard and consideration adjourned sine
die.

Owners of s.s. Kaga Maru v. Owners of s.s. Malta and Others.
In part heard and adjourned.

INDEX TO SUBJECT-MATTER.

EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

lord and tenant-Dwelling house-Recovery of posession-Satisfactory ground-Notice to quit by tenant -Refusal to quit on expiry of notice-Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915 5 & 6 Geo. 5, c. 97), s. 1, sub-s. 3

tery of possession of dwelling-house-" Some other round which may be deemed satisfactory by the ourt"-Sale to raise money to enable landlord to migrate for health reasons-Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915 (5 & 6 Po. 5, c. 97), s. 1, sub-s. 3

[blocks in formation]

FRIDAY, December 5.

Owners of s.s. Kaga Maru v. Owners of s.s. Malta and Others. Further and fully heard, and consideration adjourned sine die.

MONDAY, December 8.

North Staffordshire Ry. Co. v. Edge, [1919] 1 K. B. 367. Considered. Order of the Court of Appeal affirmed and appeal dismissed.

Cork Steamship Co., Ltd. v. Kiddle. Fully heard and consideration adjourned sine die.

TUESDAY, December 9.

Owners of s.s. Ansonia v. Commissioners for Executing the Office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom. In part heard and adjourned.

« PreviousContinue »