CASE SUMMARY: PART 24

Sherras vs. De Rutzen [1895] 1 QB 918
●Criminal Law●
“There is a presumption that mens rea, an evil intention, or a knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, is an essential ingredient in every offence, but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject matter with which it deals, and both must be consider”




Sinnasamy vs. PP [1956] 22 MLJ 36
●Criminal Law●
“Irresistible impulse per se is no defence and that it can only be a defence when it is proved to have been the ‘result of insanity in law’”


Sis vs. State of Punjab [1973] 75 Punj LR 25
●Criminal Law●
“The term ‘fight’ is not defined in the Code, but everyone knows what a fight is and that it takes two to make a fight. I would agree with the argument of the learned counsel fro the appellant that it is not necessary that weapons should be used in a fight, and also that an affray can be a fight even if only one party in the fight is successful in landing a blow on his opponent”


Sivaperuman vs. Heah Seok Yeong Realty Sdn Bhd [1979] 1 MLJ 150
●EQUITY●
“An interlocutory mandatory injunction was dissolved because it gave to the respondents the full relief sought to be secured at the trial and the balance of convenience was in favor of the appellant”


Smith vs. Anderson, [1880] 15 Ch D 247
●Law of Partnership●
Brett J held that, “the expression carrying on implies a repetition of acts and excludes the case of an association formed for doing one particular act which is never repeated.”





Smith vs. Anderson [1880] 15 Ch. D. 247
●Law of Partnership●
James L.J defined an ordinary partnership as “a partnership composed of definite individual, bound together by contract between them to continue combined for some joint object.”


Smith vs. Clay [1767] 3 Bro C 639n
●EQUITY●
“The court of equity has always refused its aid to stale demands, where a party has slept upon his rights and acquiesced for a great length of time”


Smith vs. Leech-Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405
●Law of Torts●
“The test is not whether these employers could reasonably have foreseen that a burn would cause cancer and that he would die. The question is whether these employers could reasonably foresee the type of injury he suffered, namely the burn. What, in particular case is the amount of damage which he suffers as the result of that burn, depends upon the characteristic and constitution of the victim”


Smith vs. Stone [1647] Style 65
●Law of Torts●
“The defendant was brought onto the plaintiff’s land without his consent. The court held that, the defendant was not liable, but the person who brought him in was liable for trespass”




Sorrell vs. Finch [1977] AC 728
●Land Law●
“If the stakeholder absconded, then the loss should be borne by the person who, under the terms of the contract, had a claim to the money at that time”