Day 190 - 23 Nov 95 - Page 24


     
     1        I think I can probably stop there so far as this case is
     2        concerned.
     3
     4        My Lord, finally, Edwards v. Brookes (Milk) Ltd., which is
     5        the last tab in this little bundle, (1963) 1 W.L.R., 795.
     6        Your Lordship may find -----
     7
     8   MR. MORRIS:  Can you just hold on a second, please?
     9
    10   MR. RAMPTON:  Your Lordship may find the facts of this case of
    11        some assistance here.  There are, we would suggest, some
    12        analogies to be drawn; and I will, when I have read the
    13        authority, perhaps, in a moment, suggest what might be an
    14        analogous situation in the circumstances of this McDonald's
    15        case.
    16
    17             "An inspector of weights and measures bought
    18             thirteen half pints of milk from a machine and
    19             took the cartons to the defendant company's
    20             depot although another company's name appeared
    21             on the cartons.  He there spoke to a man who
    22             said he was N.J., the depot manager.  In the
    23             presence of that man, the inspector measured the
    24             milk and found that twelve of the cartons
    25             contained less than half a pint:  he prepared a
    26             schedule and gave a copy to N.J.  Four days
    27             later, a person called at the inspector's office
    28             and said that he was a representative of the
    29             company.  The company was charged with an
    30             offence under sections 7 and 11 of the Sale of
    31             Food (Weights and Measures) Act 1926.  While the
    32             inspector was giving evidence, objections were
    33             made to evidence of his conversations with N.J.
    34             and the representative on the ground that,
    35             unless the prosecution proved that those persons
    36             were agents of the company who had been
    37             authorised by the company to make statements on
    38             its behalf, their statements were not admissible
    39             in evidence against the company.  The justices
    40             excluded evidence of those conversations and
    41             held that the prosecution had failed to prove
    42             their case.  On appeal by the prosecutor:-
    43                  Held, (1) that, in the circumstances, there
    44             was prima facie evidence from which the justices
    45             could infer that both N.J. and the
    46             representative were what they had said they
    47             were, and that it was for the company to
    48             disprove, and not for the prosecution to prove,
    49             that they were its agents.
    50                  (2)  That the status of a depot manager was 
    51             such that his authority to speak on behalf of 
    52             the company could be presumed unless there was 
    53             evidence to the contrary and the circumstances
    54             surrounding the visit of the representative to
    55             the inspector's office were such that his
    56             authority could be implied and, therefore, the
    57             justices were wrong in excluding the evidence of
    58             the inspector's conversations with them."
    59
    60        My Lord, the first judgment is by Lord Parker C.J., and

Prev Next Index