Court : House of Lords
Lord Chancellor MY LORDS, The Appellant, Reginald Woolmington, after a trial at the Somerset Assizes at Tauntonon 23rd January, at which, after an absence of one hour and twenty five minutes, the jury disagreed, was convicted at the Bristol Assizes on the 14th February of the wilful murder of his wife on 10th December, 1934, and was sentenced to death. He appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal, sub stantially upon the ground that the learned Judge had misdirected the jury by telling them that in the circumstances of the case he was presumed in law to be guilty of the murder unless he could satisfy the jury that his wife's death was due to an accident.The appeal came before the Court of Criminal Appeal upon the 18th March and was dismissed. The Court said it may be " that it would have been better " had the learned Judge who tried the case said to the jury that if they entertained reasonable doubt whether they could accept his explanation they should either acquit him altogether or co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Lord Atkin MY LORDS, This is an appeal under the necessary certificate of the Attorney-General from an order of the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissing an appeal by the Appellant from conviction and sentence on a charge of manslaughter. The Appellant was tried before Mr. Justice Du Parcq at Leeds Assizes in December, 1936, and being convicted was sentenced to be imprisoned for 15 months and was disqualified for life from holding a motor driving licence. He was indicted for manslaughter, the particulars of offence being that on 27th June, 1936, he unlawfully killed William Burton Craven. The appeal is based solely on an alleged misdirection, and no issue is raised as to the facts, which can be stated shortly. The Appellant, a man aged 37, was employed by the Leeds Corporation Transport Department at their Donisthorpe Garage. On Saturday, 27th June, at about 10.30 p.m., he was directed to take a van to assist a Corporation omnibus which had broken down at Whingate, about 3 to 4 miles awa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Lord Thankerton MY LORDS, The Respondent, who is an on cost workman in one of the Appellants' coal mines, claims damages at common law from the Appellants in respect of personal injuries sustained by him on the 27th March, 1933, while employed at the Appellants' Glencraig Colliery in Fife. The case was tried before a jury, on a general issue of fault, and, on the motion of the Appellants, the trial Judge, under Rules of Court II. 49, put specific questions to the jury, to which they returned answers. The Judge directed the jury on these questions, and no exception was taken to his charge. Important questions of law were raised before the learned Judge as to the application of the special verdict, and a reclaiming motion was taken by the present Appellants against the interlocutor of Lord Jamieson, the trial Judge, who applied the verdict in favour of the Respondent. This motion was heard by the Second Division with three Judges of the First Division, who were called into consultation e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD THANKERTON[read by Lord Russell of Killowen].—My noble and learned friend Lord Macmillan, in the opinion which he is about to deliver, has so clearly and fully expressed the views that I have formed in this appeal that it is sufficient for me to express my concurrence in it, and I will only venture to make a small addition to it. Lord Moncrieff and Lord Pitman, who dissented from the views of the majority in the Inner House, both took the view that there was no ambiguity in the terms of the clause under discussion, and that it clearly expressed a real burden. But, for the reasons explained by my noble and learned friend, I am unable to agree that there is no ambiguity, and I think that, if an instrument of sasine had been necessary in this case, the draughtsman would have been puzzled as to whether this clause—especially in view of its opening words—formed part of the dispositive clause which he was bound to incorporate in its entirety in the instrument. Lord Mon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD ATKIN. The question which arises in this case is whether there was or was not a valid gift by the will of the testatrix, which was made on August 16, 1933. After giving certain legacies, she made the following residuary gifts: she directed that her trustees were "to stand possessed of the residue upon trust in equal shares for St. Clement's Mission, Notting Dale (of which my uncle Edmund Waller was founder and which he and I have supported) for their mission work, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, the Vicar and Churchwardens of St. Columba's Church, Hoxton (for parish work), and the Vicar and Churchwardens of St. Cuthbert's Church, Philbeach Gardens, Kensington (for parish work)." The question is whether the last two gifts are valid, or whether they are not too vague as going beyond what is within the meaning of the law a charitable gift. If they go beyond the legal definition of a charitable gift, they are too vague. The principle has been expressed,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Viscount Maugham MY LORDS, The husband of the Appellant, Thomas Noble, was killed on the 25th August, 1938, by an electric train. He was in the employment of the Respondents as a "passed fireman", but he was still graded as a fireman. Noble, who was 37 years old, had been attached to the locomotive depot at Norwoodjunction since March, 1936, and he was, in fact, employed on "piloting duties", meaning that when a driver was not acquainted with the railroad, he had to travel in the engine cab and show it to him. About midnight of the 24th August, 1938, he reported at the engine shed, part of the locomotive depot, and was then told to go to East Croydon, travelling as a passenger from Norwood Junction Station by a train due to leave at 12.25 a.m. To catch that train he had to walk to the Junction Station. There is a recognised route to that place which has been specified as the right way since the locomotive depot was opened in July, 1925. It is along a footpath on the Respondents' proper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Viscount Maugham MY LORDS, This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Appeal affirming the decision of Branson J. which dismissed with costs the action of the Plaintiff who is the Appellant on this Appeal. The Respondents (the Defendants) are the trustees of the St. Joseph's Society for Foreign Missions. The facts are very clearly stated in the judgment of the Court, of Appeal delivered by Mackinnon L.J. and substantially they are as follows: — The Appellant is the owner and occupier of a house and garden called 1, Victoria Road, Mill Hill. To the north of his plot of land is a field which is owned by the Respondent. On the southern edge of that field is a hedge, and to the south of the hedge there is a ditch. There was evidence that periodically this ditch had been cleaned out by the Respondent's servants or helpers. Upon this, and upon the presumption that the area of a ditch alongside a hedge belongs to the owner of the hedge, there was ground for inferring that the area ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD CHANCELLOR(Viscount Simon).—This matter comes before the House on an appeal from an interlocutor pronounced by the Second Division of the Inner House in Scotland; and the questions in debate were raised by a special case. The procedure in Scotland for making use of a special case is well established, and there can be no doubt whatever that a special case which is going to be made the basis of argument in cases of this sort must be a special case on questions of law, and must contain all the necessary admissions and agreements in point of fact which raise that question of law. My noble and learned friend Lord Thankerton calls my attention to the language of the Court of Session (Scotland) Act, 1868, which in section 63 provides as follows:— "Where any parties interested, whether personally or in some fiduciary or official character, in the decision of a question of law shall be agreed upon the facts, and shall dispute only on the law applicable thereto, it shall be comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
The Lord Chancellor MY LORDS, On 1st December, 1936, there was an exceptionally high spring tide on the coast of Suffolk and this, reinforced by the influence of a northerly gale, caused the waters of the River Deben (which is tidal below Woodbridge) to rise so high as to wash over and break through in many places the ancient walls or banks, made of clay and stone, which ordinarily prevent the flooding of the adjoining marshland. The marshland inside the walls is at a lower level than ordinary high tides, and consequently if a breach is made in the walls the tidal water which enters will keep the marsh pastures flooded until the gap in the wall has been stopped, and the invading water has been drained away. There were no less than 22 breaches caused by this high tide in the walls of the River Deben alone, with the result that very extensive flooding took place. One of the most serious floodings occurred through a breach, estimated to measure 20 or 30 feet across, in the wall which guar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
MY LORDS, By this Appeal the appellant, so far as form is concerned, is seeking merely to have certain particulars from the defendants, the present Secretary of State for Home Affairs and his predecessor in that office, of their defence in an action of false imprisonment. The learned Master, the Judge in Chambers (Tucker, J.), and the Court of Appeal (Mackinnon, L.J., Luxmoore, L.J., and du Parcq, L.J.) have all held that the appellant is not entitled to any of the particulars he claims. In such a case this House would not generally speaking entertain an Appeal, but the circumstances are exceptional. The real object of the application is to raise at this early stage the vital question as to what onus, if any, lies on the respondents as defendants in the action in the circumstances of the case. The appellant is a person who was detained by an Order made by Sir John Anderson as Home Secretary on the 26th May, 1940, under Regulation 18B of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939. The dete...
Tag this Judgment!