View report page

144
days after the service of the summons" as regards the purchaser, but as
regards the warrantor the notice is sufficient if it he sent to him at any time
before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction comes to determine whether the
warranty be a good defence.
Accordingly where a summons was served on the appellant (a milk vendor)
on September 27th, returnable October 17th, 1913, and then adjourned sine
die to enable him to get a sample analysed at Somerset House, a notice given
by the appellant to his warrantors (a dairy company) on October 26th, and
before the final hearing, that he should rely on his warranty from them was
held to be sufficient.
Booth v. Het.liwell.
12 L.G.R. 940.
(Before Avory, Rowlatt and Shearman, J.J.)
Food—Provision shop—One man Company—Sale of adulterated butter by
assistant — Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict., c. 63), s. 6.
The appellant was a director, general manager, and Secretary of a limited
company whose business was carried on under his sole control at a shop and
premises where he resided. Iu the appellant's absence the shop assistant sold
to the prejudice of a purchaser butter adulterated with 90 per cent, of
margarine. Upon a prosecution against the appellant under section 6 of the
Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, the Justices found that the sale was to the
prejudice of the purchaser, that the assistaut was employed by the appellant
as shopman, that he effected the sale in the scope of his employment, and
convicted the appellant of the offence charged.
Held, that the company must be regarded as a separate entity notwithstanding
nearly all the shares were in the hands of the appellant ; that the
shop assistant was the servant of the limited company and not of the appellant
and that the conviction could not stand. »
Locai. Government Board v. Arlidge.
12 L.G.R. 1109.
(Before Viscount Haldane, L.C., Lord Shaw, Lord Moulton and
Lord Parmoor.)
Housing Acts—Insanitary dwelling—Closing Order—Public local inquiry—
Report of Inspector—Right of Appellant to see report and to be heaid in
support of Appeal—Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1909 (9 Edw. VII.,
c. 44), ss. 17, 39—Housing of Working Classes, England, Rules, January
11th, 1910, rr. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9.
The owner of a dwelling house in the Metropolitan area applied to the
local authority to determine a closing order which had been made in respect
thereof under the Housing, Town Planning, &c , Act, 1909, and on their
refusal to do so appealed to the Local Government Board. The Board
directed a public inquiry to be held by an inspector as provided for by section
39, sub-section 1 (b), who, after holding the inquiry and personally inspecting
the premises, made certain reports to the Board. The Board dismissed the
appeal without having disclosed to the owner the contents of the inspector's