Quarterly Summary
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836002400111 |
| Published date | 01 January 1960 |
| Date | 01 January 1960 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Quarterly Summary
(Extended reports
of
some
of
the cases here summarised will be
given in our next
issue.-Editor.)
EVIDENCE OF STATE OF
MIND
NOT
HEARSAY
R. v. Willis
ON a charge of larceny one of
the
points in the prosecu-
tion's case was
that
the appellant had failed to give
candid answers to
the
police.
The
defence had sought to give
evidence through
the
appellant as to what one of his employees
had
said to him as being material in considering
the
appellant's
subsequent conduct.
The
deputy chairman rejected this
evidence as being hearsay
but
the
Court of Criminal Appeal
said
that
it should have been admitted as it was clear
that
evidence of what was said to
the
defendant by someone who
was
not
called as a witness was good evidence of
the
defend-
ant's state of mind. Provided
the
state of mind of
the
defendant was relevant it mattered not when
the
statement
was made.
The
appeal was dismissed as
the
jury
would have
returned
the
same verdict in any event. (28th November,
1959)·
"
USING"
BROKEN-DOWN
CAR
Elliot v. Grey
The
Divisional Court held
that
the appellant was properly
convicted of
"using"
a car on a road without an insurance
policy when it had broken down some six weeks previously
and had been left parked outside his house.
The
car had been
left jacked up so
that
the
wheels were off
the
ground and
the
battery had been removed.
The
car could not be mechanically
propelled and
the
appellant had no intention of driving it or
moving it.
The
charge was brought after another car collided
with it.
The
Court thought
that
to
"use"
was distinct from to
"drive"
and was a wider
term
than
"move."
It
meant to
"have the use of."
(joth
October, 1959.)
7S
To continue reading
Request your trial