Divisional Court Cases
| Published date | 01 April 1956 |
| Date | 01 April 1956 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835602000204 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional Court Cases
WHAT IS A
"LOUDSPEAKER"
Reynolds v. John; T. Wall &Sons Ltd. v. John
By
the
Glarnorgan County Council Act, 1952, s. 115
(I):
"N
0person shall for
the
purpose of advertising any
trade or business or any
part
of a trade or business
operate or cause or suffer to be operated any loudspeaker
when such loudspeaker is in any street in the county. ...
By subsec (5) of the above section:
"the
expression 'loudspeaker' includes an amplifier
or similar instrument"
In
the
present case (1956 2 W.L.R. 398)
the
appellant
Reynolds was employed by
the
appellant company as
the
driver of a van from which icecrearn was sold to members of
the
public. Informations were preferredagainst bothappellants
before
the
Glamorganjusticesfor an alleged breach of s. 115(I)
on
the
6th
February, 1955, in Redlands Avenue, Penarth.
The
justices found
that
the
offences charged had been proved and
fined both appellants. Against this decision appeal was
brought by case stated which was heard on
the
rSth
and
19th January, 1956, by a Divisional Court consisting of
Lord
Goddard C.J., Stable and Ashworth
JJ.
who dismissed
the
appeal.
Two
questions were raised by the appeals:
(I)
Did
the
van driver operate a'loudspeaker'?
(2) Was such loudspeaker operated for
the
purpose of
'advertising' the trade of
the
appellant company?
The
facts proved or admitted were
that
before starting to
send around
the
Penarth district their icecream van
the
company had advertised their icecream in
the
local Press, at
local cinemas and on hoardings;
that
this had been followed by
apersonal canvass on
the
basis of which
the
rounds of
the
van
had been worked
out;
that
the
company
then
notified persons
145
To continue reading
Request your trial