Privy Council Court November 1948 Judgments

Chenard and Co. and Others Vs. Joachim Arissol

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC127

Lord Reid: The defendant and respondent, in this case is a member of the Legislative Council of Seychelles. The plaintiffs and appellants are merchants in Seychelles and the present action was brought by them in consequence of statements admittedly made by the respondent in the course of a speech in the Legislative Council on 28th December 1946. These statements are alleged to be defamatory of the appellants and it is further alleged that the respondent abused his position as a member of the Legislative Council for the purpose of making false, malicious and defamatory statements against the appellants. The respondent while denying these allegations pleaded in limine litis that no action lay in law against him as a member of the Legislative Council on the averments of the statement of claim. This plea was sustained by the Supreme Court of Seychelles on 20th March 1947. [2] The only question raised in this appeal is whether absolute privilege attaches to statements made in the Legislativ...

theattorney-general of Saskatchewan Vs. the Attorney-general of Canada ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC190

Viscount Simon: This is an Appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, dated 13th May 1947 (Rinfret C. J., Kerwin, Rand and Kellock JJ.; Taschereau J., dissenting), which answered a question propounded by the Governor-General in Council concerning the constitutional validity of S. 6, Farm Security Act, 1944, enacted by the Legislature of the Province, of Saskatchewan, as amended by S. 2 of chap. 28 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1945. There was also a second question, framed on the hypothesis that the said S. 6 was not ultra vires, and asking whether the section was operative in the case of mortgages securing loans by the Crown in right of Canada and in certain analogous cases. The majority in the Supreme Court bald that S. 6 was wholly ultra vires and therefore found it unnecessary to answer the second question. Taschereau J. was of opinion that S. 6 was intra vires, and answered the second question in the negative. [2] The questions referred by the Gover...

Noor Mohamed Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC161

Lord du Parcq: After hearing the arguments of counsel for the appellant and for the Crown, their Lordships announced that they would humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be allowed and the conviction of the appellant quashed, and would state their reasons for tendering this advice at a later date. Those reasons are set out in this judgment. [2] The appellant was tried before the Supreme Court of British Guiana on a charge of murdering a woman commonly known, and referred to during the trial, as Ayesha. The jury found him guilty, and be was sentenced to death. Evidence was admitted at the trial to which objection was taken by the appellant's counsel on the ground that it tended to show that the appellant had murdered another woman, his wife, Gooriah. It, was said on behalf of the appellant that the evidence ought to be excluded as being prejudicial to him and irrelevant. For the Crown it was contended, on grounds which it will be necessary to state later in this judgment, t...

Antonio Buttigieg Vs. Inez Faizon and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC118

Lord Uthwatt: This is an appeal from a judgment dated 3rd December 1916, of the Court of Appeal of Malta affirming the judgment of the Commercial Court of Malta dismissing the claim of the appellant for the rescission of a contract dated 16th January 1944, made between the appellant and the respondents. [2] It appears that Carmelo Bonavia and Salvatore Quintano were partners in equal shares in a concern known as "Palais de Danses" carried on at lease-hold premises No. 84, Strait Street, Valetta, and held in their joint names as one of the partnership assets a permit to hold public dances issued by the police on 29th September 1925. On the death of Quintano, the respondents became entitled to his moiety in the concern and on 18th January 1944, entered into an agreement with the appellant for the transfer of that moiety to the appellant. [3] The agreement provides that by virtue of it the respondents transfer to the appellant for the sum of 700 a moiety of the concern, goodwill and all o...

North West Frontier Province Vs. Suraj NaraIn Anand

Court: Privy Council

Lord Thankerton: (part I). (Delivered on 18-3-1948)-This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the Federal Court of India, D/- 4-12-1941, reversing a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, North-West Frontier Province, Peshawar, date 19-9-1940, which had affirmed a decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Peshawar, dated 8th March 1940. The Federal Court made a declaration that the respondent's dismissal was void and inoperative, and submitted the case to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for consideration of the respondent's claim for arrears of pay. [a] On 1st March 1928, the respondent was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police by the Inspector General of Police, North-West Frontier Province. On 25th April 1938, the respondent was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, on a charge of copying during a departmental examination. He was therefore dismissed by an authority subordinate in rank to the officer who had appointed him. [3] Aft...