law and practice in the two countries, for they would remain in the meantime as dissimilar as they had always been. Indeed, if any such assimilation was intended, I cannot conceive any rational object for deferring in Ireland the operation of the provisions already in force in England for the preservation of the person of the king, for the period during which the postponement must necessarily take place. The construction sought to be put on this statute is opposed by the fact, that the provisions of the 36th Geo. 3 are penal in the highest degree, and cannot be extended by construction, for a penal law must be construed strictly both as to its spirit and letter. Fletcher v. Lord Sandes, (3 Bing. 580.) Great stress was laid by counsel for the prisoners upon the recital in the 11th sect., which shewed that doubts were entertained whether the provisions of the 36 Géo. 3, made perpetual by the 57 Geo. 3, extended to Ireland. Those doubts do not relate to the 4th section of that act, or as to whether a person indicted in Ireland was entitled to the benefit of the statutes of William and Anne; it is argued that the expression of those doubts as to the 1st section, and the omission as to the 4th section shew there is no doubt that the latter only observe that they were, as to some treasons, declaratory, and as to others, enactive; that the treasons it deals with are divisible into two distinct classes, one relating to treasons against the person of Geo. 3, and of his heirs, the other to attempts against his government. The act was only temporary, to continue for the life of the king, and until the end of the session of parliament next after his decease; and though the offences thereby made treason would have that character, whether committed within the realm or without, yet the persons charged with them were only triable by courts of competent jurisdiction in England. The 5th section provided that every person accused of offences which were declared to be treasons by its provisions, should be entitled to the benefit of the acts of William and Anne. The 39th and 40th Geo. 3, cap. 93, enacted, that when the overt act was the assassination of the monarch or a direct attempt against his person, the party charged should be tried as in a case of murder. Then came the 57th Geo. 3, cap. 6, entitled, "an act to make perpetual certain provisions of the 36th Geo. 3, and to provide for the safety and preservation of his royal highness the Prince Regent against treasonable practices and attempts." The 4th sect. of this act provided that persons charged with trea-section extended to Ireland. This assumption is sons, not directed against the life of the sovereign, should be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the statutes of William and Anne. Now it was obvious that this 4th section had reference to persons who might be indicted after its provisions should commence to operate, namely, at the end of the session of parliament next after the demise of the then George the Third. The question, therefore, is could an indictment, after the passing of this act, be maintained in Ireland for any of the offences that were made treason by the 36th Geo. 3. It is contended that Ireland is included, because it is not expressly excluded by the enactment in the first section of the act. However general the words of an act may be, the object and nature of its enactments may make it necessary to construe them in a restricted sense, and to hold that it could not have been intended that the act should operate according to its very letter. We must therefore see whether it was or could have been intended to include Ireland within the operation of the first section. Whatever be the value of the omission of words of express exclusion, it is certain that the statute does not contain any indication of an intention to extend it to this country, or to confer any power, which the 36th Geo. 3 would not have conferred, had it been perpetual ab initio. Indeed, I cannot reconcile with the plain meaning of the words, " continue and perpetuate," any other idea than that the law as it then stood should so continue. Until the expiration of the 36 Geo. 3, the 57 Geo. 3 could have no practical effect in England. Was it, then, to have practical effect in Ireland? There was nothing in the act to warrant the assumption that it was to have a different period for its commencement in Ireland than it had in England. If, then, its effect was to take place in both countries at one and the same time-that was, at the end of the session of Parliament next after the decease of the then king-the postponement was utterly inconsistent with the alleged intention to assimilate the perfectly arbitrary, and might, with equal reason, be met by the crown with as positive an assertion, that there was no doubt on the subject, and that the 4th section did not extend to Ireland; but we have what is decisive of the matter. The 1 & 2 George 4, c. 24, an act conversant with trials for high treason in Ireland, commences by reciting two of the provisions of the 7th Wm. 3, c. 3, the first requiring two witnesses to prove each overt act of treason; and the other, that no person should be indicted unless the indictment was found within three years after the treason was committed. It then recites that these provisions had not previously extended to Ireland, and that it was expedient that they should. This was a direct contradiction to the assertion that the statute of William had been extended to Ireland by the 57th Geo. 3, c. 6. These various reasons have induced me to come to the conclusion, that the 1st and 4th sections of the 57th Geo. 3, c. 8, do not extend to Ireland. I now proceed to consider the argument raised in support of the plea founded on the provisions of the act of the 11th Vic. c. 12. The first section of this act repeals all the provisions of the 36 Geo. 3, and of the 57th Geo. 3, save those which it enumerates, and which were all before set forth in the recital of the 36th Geo. 3. What the recited provisions of the 36th Geo. 3 not thereby repealed were, there is not the least difficulty in ascertaining; for it is plain that they were those which related to the compassing or intending the death or destruction, or any bodily harm tending thereunto, the maiming, wounding, imprisonment, or restraint of the heirs or successors of King George 3. These were the recited provisions, and the only recited provisions of the act of the 36th Geo. 3, which that of the 57th Geo. 3, c. 6, made perpetual, and of necessity they were the only provisions which, by the second section, were to be made law in Ireland. But it has been argued, that though the second section did not in terms refer to the fourth lature, the use of the word "treason" would have section of the 57th Geo. 3, c. 6, yet that that sec- Counsel for the prisoner insist that under the words tion was not repealed by the 11th Vic. c. 12, but" or any other felony," the right of challenge is not was included in the exceptions, and was therefore so limited. If that were the intention of the legis still in force, and available to persons who might be indicted in England, and hence it was inferred that it was also in force in Ireland. Now, assuming that the 4th section of the 57th Geo. 3, c. 6, was included in the exceptions, the consequence was not that it was to be in force in Ireland, but only that the law in that respect was to remain unchanged, and that the 4th section should continue, as it had previously been, the law of England; any other construction would be repugnant to the language and intention of the legislature. It has been argued, on the part of the plaintiffs in error, that if this 4th section of the 57th Geo. 3, c. 6, did not extend to Ireland, persons indicted under the 11th Vic. c. 12, for any of the treasons against the person of the sovereign, could not have the benefit of the Irish statutes, and must be sentenced, on conviction, to undergo the barbarous punishment of treason under the common law. I cannot adopt this view of the case as affording ground for questioning the conclusion to which I have arrived, as the just result arising from a great number of considerations. But though, from the terms of the 5th Geo. 3, c. 31, there might be some question whether a person so indicted should have the benefit of its provisions, I still think he would be entitled to the benefit of the 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 54, I now come to consider the position contended for by the crown-and, I think, successfully-that even though persons indicted under the 11th Vic. c. 12, would be entitled to the benefit of the English statutes, the plaintiffs in error here could not be so, have been cited where these terms are used, but the indictments not containing any overt acts of none where judgment in the present form was held personal violence. I have already stated that the to be void. It is said the prisoner must have an 36 Geo. 3, c. 7, appears to me to refer to two dis-opportunity afforded him of moving in arrest of tinct classes of treason, the one having for its judgment; when he is called upon to state why object the protection of the person of the sovereign, the other the preservation of his authority and government; and I think these two classes are unequivocally recognised and distinguished by the 11th Vic. c. 12, which, after a full recital of all the treasons made or declared by the 36th Geo. 3, c. 7, sets out in the preamble that its object was to repeal such of the provisions so recited as did not relate to offences against the person of the sovereign. This is a plain declaration that some of them do, and some do not, relate to offences against the person of the sovereign. The enactments are in exact conformity with the preamble; I have, therefore, come to the conclusion, that though now, as before the act, the charge of compassing the death of the sovereign might be sustained under the 25th Edw. 3, by any overt act against her imperial authority, as well as against her per-assigned was, that the prisoner was not asked what son, yet that the 11th Vic. c. 12, was confined to the latter species of treason, and that, as this indictment is framed, it cannot be considered as founded on its provisions. For these reasons, I consider the demurrer to these pleas to have been properly allowed. The next error assigned is for the rejection of the prisoners' peremptory challenge after having challenged twenty. Counsel for the crown insist that by the 9 Geo. 4, c. 54, the right of challenge is limited to twenty; and, upon the other hand, judgment should not be passed upon him, that opportunity is certainly afforded him. The judg ment here is that prescribed by the 54 Geo. 3, c. 146, which does not use the word "execution," and uses the word "sentence" as synonymous with judgment. In the word "judgment" are comprised all the details which are to constitute the sentence. If, however, precedents and authorities are required to warrant the present form, they are abundant. In 4th Blackstone, c. 29, it is said, "When verdict is found, the prisoner shall be asked why judgment should not be awarded against him." In the case of the King v. Royce (4th Burr. 2073), the prisoner was asked why judgment should not be pronounced and sentence awarded against him. The cases cited from 3 Mod. 265 were cases in which there was no allocutus at all; in the former cases, the error he had to say why judgment should not be given against him. For these several reasons I think these causes of error should be disallowed. CRAMPTON, J., expressed his full concurrence in the judgment of the court, except as to the recep tion of the plea, being of opinion that the subject matter of it should have been disposed of on motion, and not received as a plea to the indictment. PERRIN and MOORE, J.J., expressed their entre concurrence. Errors overrul d ROLLS COURT. O'CONNOR v. MALONE.-Feb. 12. Practice-Receiver-Security. March 6. THE ATTORNEY-General AT THE RELATION OF F. JACKSON AND OTHERS v. THE CORPORATION OF DUBLIN. Rate. Where the rental of lands, over which a receiver has been appointed is considerable, he will be per- Injunction-Corporation of Dublin-Pipe-water mitted to divide his security amongst several, and the entire sum in which the sureties qualify, need not exceed double the rental. This was an application on behalf of the receiver in this cause, that he might give security to the amount of £22,000-being more than two years gross rental of the lands over which he had been appointed-in the following manner; himself in the sum of £22,000, Sir H. C. Coote, in the sum of £11,000, Colonel F. P. Dunne, in the sum of £5,500, and H. P. Pigott, in the sum of £5,500, making together, £22,000. Mr. Berkely, for the motion-where the rental is small, it is the practice to require each of the sureties to qualify in double the amount of the yearly rent; but when the rental is considerable, as in the present case, the receiver is permitted to give security by several persons, and the gross amount of all taken together need not exceed double the yearly rental; Houlditch v. Marquis of Donegal, (3 L. Rec. N. S. 65), and the case of Lord Kingston, mentioned in the argument in that case. Since the new general orders, a receiver cannot have more than one year's rent in his hands, therefore the parties would be perfectly secure. Mr. Lefroy, contra-Mr. Lestrange, the other candidate for the situation of receiver in this cause, is prepared to give security according to the usual practice of the court, which should not be departed from to his prejudice, for if the receiver appointed is not prepared to give security, Mr. Lestrange would be appointed in his place. The security should be by two persons, each bound in every portion of the entire sum. MASTER OF THE ROLLS.-The authority which has been cited is an express decision on the point, I will therefore make the order in the terms of the notice. SHERLOCK v. ROE.-March 3. Fund in Court-Title of Landlord to, after Recovery by him in Ejectment. Ormsby moved that the fund in court to the credit of the cause might be applied in payment of the arrears of rent due to the head landlord. The interest in the lands has been evicted for non payment of rent, and the fund in court being the produce of these lands, the landlord is entitled to have same applied in payment of the arrears. In the case of Elliott v. Elliott, (1 Ir. Jur. 165), in the Exchequer, an order was made similar to that which is now sought. MASTER OF THE ROLLS.-I think the practice, as established by the case in the Court of Exchequer, is correct; besides, the landlord is entitled to sue the tenant for all arrears due after the date of the demise. Motion granted. In the year 1837, the Corporation of the City of Dublin issued debentures, charged upon the surplus pipe-water revenue, and which recited, that by a decree pronounced in 1831, it had been declared, that the surplus pipe-water revenue was the property of the corporation. In 1849, an information was filed, and upon motion for an injunction to restrain the corporation from applying the pipe-water rate in payment of the interest upon said debentures-Held, that in the absence of the majority of debenture holders this application must be refused; for, even though such payment was a misapplication of the fund, the injunction ought not be granted till the hearing of the cause, when the court could do justice to the debenture holders, by directing payment of their demands out of the private funds of the corporation. Upon applications for injunctions, the court will take into consideration the balance of inconvenience; and, even though the act sought to be restrained is one which should not be done, if the granting of the injunction would be attended with inconvenience or injustice to third parties, the motion will be refused. Semble-That the entire pipe-water rate, levied under the 15th and 16th Geo. 3, c. 24, is held by the Corporation of the City of Dublin upon trust, and no part thereof is the private property of the corporation. In this case, the information stated, that previous to the passing of the 15th and 16th Geo. 3, the corporation was in the habit of supplying water to the inhabitants of the city of Dublin; it then stated the provisions of that act, by which the corporation was empowered to borrow money upon the security of the rates, and which are sufficiently set forth in the judgment of the court; also the 43rd Geo. 3, called the Metal Main Act, which enabled the corporation to raise further sums, and which recited the debt created under the provisions of the first-mentioned act, and that the corporation were bound to apply a sum of £2,000 annually in discharge of same. The information then stated that the funds had been applied to other purposes, in violation of the trusts upon which they were held, and various facts connected with proceedings taken against the corporation on account of this misapplication were then set forth, and the Master's report made in the year 1830, by which it appeared that up to the year 1825, the sum of £74,500 had been misapplied. the That in year 1831, a decree was pronounced, by which the corporation was directed, within six months, to pay off this sum of £74,500, and cause the debentures, upon the security of which said sum had been raised, to be discharged, and that no further sums should be levied under the last-mentioned act. That this decree was confirmed on appeal that new debentures were issued by the corpora- Skinner's Company v. Irish Society (1 M. & Cr. 162); Attorney-General v. Mayor of Liverpool (1 M. & Cr. 171), March 7-Hughes, Q.C., for the Hibernian Bank, contended that the court could not, in the absence of the other creditors, grant an injunc tion against payment of the interest upon the sum advanced by the Bank, as absent parties should not be affected by the proceedings, and an injunetion could not be granted against the Bank without being granted against the other debenture holders also. Besides, the questions now raised were more properly for the hearing of the cause, and ought not to be decided on motion. Baldwin, Q.C., in reply, contended that the cor poration had not properly discharged the trust reposed in them by the statutes for the supply of water to the inhabitants of the city of Dublin was totally insufficient; and even assuming that the corporation was entitled to the surplus pipe-water fund, if the trust was not properly discharged there could not be any surplus. By granting this application, less injury would be done than by refusing it, as the rights of the claimants to the fund would be only postponed till answer or decree, but if the money was paid, irreparable injury would be done. Brewster, Q.C., now moved for an injunction to restrain the defendants from applying any portion of the pipe-water rate in discharge of the interest on any debenture or mortgage issued or exchanged in discharge of the sum of £74,500, or of the MASTER OF THE ROLLS.-In this case a motion interest upon any mortgage or incumbrance created by the corporation, over and above the said sum of has been made on the part of the relators, that the £74,500, or in payment of the compensation of defendants be restrained by injunction from apply. dismissed officers; and after stating the facts set ing any portion of the pipe-water rates, or rents, forth in the information, and the affidavit in sup-in discharge of the interest payable on any of the port of it, relied upon the cases of Attorney-debentures for £74,500 in the informations menGeneral v. Corporation of Limerick (6 Dow. 136), tioned, or on any debentures or securities issued Attorney-General v. Corporation of Carlisle, or substituted in lieu of said sum of £74,500. (2 Sim. 437), Attorney-General v. Corporation of 2ndly-That the defendants may, in like manner, Galway (Beat. 298), Attorney-General v. Mayor of be restrained from applying any portion of the Liverpool (1 M. & C. 171), Attorney-General v. said pipe-water rates, or rents, in payment of inWilson (Cr. & Ph. 1), Attorney-General v. Cor-terest upon any mortgage or other security created poration of Litchfield (13 Sim. 547), Attorney-by the defendants over and above the said sum of General v. Mayor of Norwich (12 Jur. 424), Attorney-General v. Corporation of Dublin, (1 Bligh, 312), to shew that the pipe-water rate was a fund held by the corporation for charitable purposes, and could not be applied to any other use except to provide a supply of water to the inhabitants of the city of Dublin. Christian, Q.C., contra, on behalf of the corporation, contended, that if the present application was granted, the rights of the debenture holders, which had been recognised and acted on for twelve years, would be most injuriously affected. Also, if the interest upon the sum borrowed from the Hibernian Bank was not paid within the time agreed on, it would be raised from £4 to £6 per cent.-that by the decree pronounced by Sir Wm. M'Mahon, the right of the corporation to the surplus funds produced by the pipe-water rate was admitted, and the debentures issued in substitution for the metal main debentures, were charged upon that fund, to which they were so entitledthat by the arrangement with the Hibernian Bank, the fund was considerably benefitted, as the interest payable on the sum borrowed was only at the rate of £4 per cent, while the pipe-water debentures bore a higher rate; and relied upon the cases of Spottiswood v. Clarke (2 Ph. 154;) £74,500. 3rdly-That the defendants may further be restrained from applying any portion of the said pipe-water rates, or rents, in payment of compensation to dismissed officers. The information in this case was filed upon the 25th of January, 1849; it was amended in some material particulars on the 21st of February, and on the 23rd of February notice of this motion was served. No fact has been stated to the court which did not lie within the knowledge of the relators and of the citizens of Dublin for the last eleven or twelve years. The first question is, whether I should restrain the defendants, by injunction, from apply. ing any portion of the pipe water rates, or rents, in discharge of the interest payable on any of the debentures for £74,500 in the information mentioned, or in discharge of interest payable on any debentures or securities issued or substituted in lieu of said sum of £74,500. The earliest statute which relates to the supply of the city of Dublin with water, is the 6th Geo, 1, c. 16. That statute recited that the city of Dublin had, for many ages past, been seised and possessed of a water course taken out of the River Dodder, which was the chief supply of water, not only for the inhabitants of the said city, but also for his Majesty's Castle of Dublin, and which without it would suffer ex ceeding great prejudice. It further recited the sooner repaid and satisfied. The 12th section manner in which the water was corrupted, to the authorised the transfer of this mortgage or debenendangering the health of the inhabitants of the ture by the mortgagee, by indorsement in the form said city, and it enacted that the Lord Mayor, thereby directed. The 14th section provided that Sheriffs, Commons, and citizens of Dublin, should persons to whom these mortgages should be made and might peaceably and quietly have, hold, pos- should be creditors on such rates and rents in sess, and enjoy the aforesaid ancient watercourse, equal degree, and that there should be no preand have free liberty, from time to time, without ference in respect of the prior advance of money, being liable to any trespass or other action for the or prior date of the mortgage or debenture. The same, to enter upon any land through which the act of the 15th and 16th Geo. 3 was amended by watercourse did pass, and various powers were subsequent acts, but the amendments do not appear given to the corporation to secure the supply of material to the question to be decided upon this pure and wholesome water to the citizens of motion. The 49th Geo. 3, c. 80 (commonly called Dublin. The 15th and 16th Geo. 3, c. 24, after the Metal Main Act), after reciting the 15th and reciting that the inhabitants of the city of Dublin 16th Geo. 3, and some of the statutes amending had not of late been sufficiently supplied with that act and after reciting that it had become water, which had been occasioned by the great expedient, to secure a more ample and permanent increase of the inhabitants of the said city, and supply of water to the inhabitants of the city of the insufficiency of the works formerly constructed Dublin, and to prevent the frequent breaking up of to supply such a number; and further reciting that the pavement of the streets of the said city, for the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, Commons, and citizens the purpose of repairing the pipe-water works of the city of Dublin had, for many ages past, thereof, that considerable expensive and permabeen seised and possessed of a water-course from nent alterations and improvements should be made the River Dodder, and, at a great expense, had in the said works, by making additional reservoirs made a basin, or reservoir, for water and other therein, and by substituting cast iron or metal works; and reciting that the corporation to pro- main service pipes instead of the timber pipes then mote, as much as in it lay, a supply of water in use-and reciting that the rates then payable adequate to the inhabitants of the city of Dublin, for the sale of water in the city were wholly inhad entered into a contract with the Grand Canal sufficient to defray the expense of such new and Company for an ample suppy of pure water, at an necessary work, the said statute enacted, that it expense of ten per cent. on the gross produce of should be lawful for the corporation of Dublin the revenue which would arise to the said corpora- to demand and take from every owner or occupier tion of the city of Dublin from the sale of said of every house within the city of Dublin, and water. It was enacted, "That the owners of every the liberties thereof, in the act mentioned, for the house should, and they were thereby required to purposes of the said act, the annual rates or rents provide for the use of each house a branch pipe, in the said act mentioned, "over and above all to convey the water from the several main pipes rates or rents then payable by them for a supply which then were, or thereafter should be laid in the of pipe water under or by virtue of the said recited several streets, aileys, yards, courts, squares, lanes, acts, or any of them." By the 11th section of or on the quays in the said city, into the said house the said act it was further enacted, that the Coror houses in the said city. By the second section poration of the City of Dublin might, and they of that act it was enacted, that the owner or were thereby empowered to borrow, at interest occupier of every house in the city of Dublin upon the credit of the rates and rents granted by should pay to the corporation of said city certain the said act of the 15th and 16th Geo. 3, c. 24, rates specified in that section, varying according to (the Pipe Water Act), and by the said statute of the amount of ministers' money charged on each the 49th Geo. 3, c. 80, (the Metal Main Act), such house. The 11th section of the said act empow-sum or sums as they should from time to time find ered the Corporation of the City of Dublin to necessary for the purpose of making the said borrow, at interest upon the credit of said rates reservoirs, and laying cast iron or metal main and and rents, such sum as they should find necessary service pipes, and to demise or mortgage the said for the purposes of the act, and to demise or mort-rents, or any part thereof, as a security to any gage, by writing under the seal of the corporation, the said rates and rents as a security to any person or persons who should advance such sum or sums. The form of the mortgage or deben ture is then given, by which the corporation, in consideration of the sum borrowed, grant, bargain, sell, and demise to the mortgagee, his executors, administrators, and assigns, such proportion of the whole rents arising by virtue of the said act as the sum, so borrowed, should bear to the whole sum advanced, or to be advanced on the credit thereof, to have and to hold from the day of the date of the mortgage for and during the continuance of the act, unless the said sum, with interest at the rate in the mortgage specified, should be person or persons who should advance such sum or sums. The form of the mortgage or debenture is then given in the act, and it is to the same effect as the form of security set forth in the act of the 15th and 16th Geo. 3, except that the pipe water rates and rents, which the corporation are empowered to levy by the 15th and 16th Geo. 3, and the metal main rates or rents which they were empowered to levy by the 49th Geo. 3, c. 80, are both charged with the money borrowed. By the 12th section, the sum to be borrowed, under the provisions and for the purposes of the 49th Geo. 3, c. 80, was limited to the sum of £32,000. The 13th section, after reciting that there was then a debt of £67,800, secured by the rates granted by |