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
