Onus Of Proof Research Articles

Onus of Proof on Defendant: No Driving Licence or No Insurance Policy

Onus of Proof on Defendant: No Driving Licence or No Insurance Policy

The Charles Racine (Cargo Ex). The Petter (Cargo Ex).

Contraband of War — Absolute Contraband — Cargo Shipped before Outbreak of War — Alleged Subsequent Abandonment of Hostile Destination — Onus of Proof — Continuous Voyage — Relevance of Surrounding Circumstances.

Tort—Negligence—Res Ipsa Loquitur—Tyre Burst—Reasonable System of Tyre Maintenance—Onus of Proof

Tort—Negligence—Res Ipsa Loquitur—Tyre Burst—Reasonable System of Tyre Maintenance—Onus of Proof

Rex v. Krebs.

Prisoners of War — Criminal Responsibility — Escape — Charges of Breaking and Entering and Stealing — Acts Incidental to Escape — Acts Necessary for Preservation of Liberty — Onus of Proof — Nature of Terrain into which Escape is Effected — Duty to Escape.

British Food Journal Volume 34 Issue 6 1932

The figures contained in these regulations were not intended, either literally or by implication, to be taken as standards for milk. A milk which contains less than 8·5 per cent. of solids‐not‐fat is not necessarily adulterated—one that contains 8·5 per cent. or more is not necessarily genuine. All that the regulations do is to move the onus of proof. In the case of the prosecution of a vendor of milk for a sample which contained 8·5 or more of solids‐not‐fat the Local Authority would have to prove that the sample was adulterated, in the case of a prosecution for a sample which contained less than 8·5 per cent. of solids‐not‐fat, the defendant, in order to escape conviction, would have to prove the milk to be genuine. The weight which has been given to this limit of 8·5 per cent. of solids‐not‐fat has varied considerably. There are those who appear to consider that it is almost an absolute minimum, and that any milk which contains less than this amount is almost certainly watered, whilst others attach little importance to this figure. It may be desirable to interpolate at this point the figures which have been obtained recently on the samples taken in the County of Lancaster. Since the beginning of the year 1930, 5,959 samples of milk have been examined, of this number 121, or 2·0 per cent., have contained less than 8·5 per cent. of solids‐not‐fat. By means of some of the methods which are described below each of these deficient samples has been examined for the presence of added water, and it has been found that 102 contained added water, whilst 19 were naturally poor. It follows, then, as far as these samples are concerned, that in the case of herds of cows, only 0·3 per cent. give milk containing less than 8·5 per cent. of solids‐not‐fat. From this it must of necessity follow that the limit of 8·5 is at least a very good sorting test. In fact it is far more likely to fail to detect slightly adulterated milks (containing, say, from 1 to 5 per cent. of added water) than it is to describe milks as adulterated which are in reality genuine but poor. Dr. J. F. Tocher, who holds the position of Public Analyst to many of the Scottish Counties, and who is a very outspoken critic of the methods adopted for the determination of added water, has written on this subject to a considerable extent. The following statement, which was made by him in his 1925 Report, has been brought to my notice § with the suggestion that it should be referred to in this report. Dr. Tocher writes:—“The general conclusion from these results is that it is quite unsound on the part of analysts to express a definite opinion that water has been added to milk, when a sample has been found to be below 8·5 per cent. in solids‐in‐fat.” If such a statement as this merely means that a milk is not necessarily watered if the percentage of solids‐not‐fat is below 8·5 it is, of course, not only correct, but absolutely unassailable; in fact, it is merely putting the limit of the Regulations into other words. To those, however, who are familiar with Dr. Tocher's other writings, it may appear that there is something more than this behind the words used. On many occasions in the past Dr. Tocher has stated categorically that it is not possible to prove by chemical or physical examination that a milk is or is not watered, and that all that an analyst can say is that the milk is below the limit, and leave the interpretation of the fact to others, the final evidence being obtained from those who have handled the milk. Apart from the fact that it is not usual to give undue weight to evidence obtained from a defendant it would be quite impossible to rely entirely on this source, for the reasons given in the following paragraph.

On Deep-Sea Climates

RECENT investigations have certainly tended to confirm the view originally advocated by my colleague, Dr. Carpenter, and myself, that a large portion of the bottom of the present sea has been under water and continuously accumulating sediment, at all events since the commencement of the “Cretaceous period,” and possibly much earlier. The marked parallelism which, setting aside all local dislocations and denudations, evidently exists between the Jurassic, the Cretaceous, the Tertiary formations, and the present sea-board, and the evident relation of that parallelism to the older rock axes, would seem indeed to indicate that the main features of the present physical geography may date from a period even anterior to the deposition of the older Mesozoic rocks. With many minor and temporary oscillations, of which we have ample geological evidence, the borders of the Oolitic, the Cretaceous, and the Tertiary seas, have apparently been successively and permanently raised, and the ocean over an area, the long axis of which may probably correspond with that of the Atlantic, proportionally contracted. The question simply is, whether, since the elevation of the Jurassic beds, any oscillation has at any time raised into dry land the whole of the trough of the Atlantic, so as to arrest the deposit of sediment abruptly over the area, and to extinguish all animal life, thus defining what seems to be popularly understood as the close of a geological period, and requiring the complete repeopling of the succeeding sea by immigration, or, according to another view, by the creation of an entirely new fauna. It seemed to us on the whole more probable that the successive elevations of the borders of the Mesozoic sea were accompanied by compensating depression and deepening of the centre of the trough, which may thus have been inhabited throughout by a continuous succession of animal forms; at all events, the onus of proof appeared to rest with those who maintained any breach of continuity.