the possession being adverse at the time of the passing of the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 27, though it had not been so during the entire 20 years. O'Sullivan v. M Sweeny, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 89, Ex. A., the owner in fee of certain lands, put B. with whom he lived in illicit intercourse, into possession of a portion thereof, and permitted her to continue in possession of same for a period of more than twenty years. Held that A. and the persons deriving under him, were barred by the operation of the 3 & 4, W. 4, c. 27, and could not maintain an ejectment for the recovery of these lands. De Montmorency v. Walsh, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 254, Q. B. It is not at all necessary that the possession to confer title should be adverse; that statute has put an end to the doctrine of adverse possession, except in respect of cases coming within the 15th section. Ib. [Per Burton, J.] In 1791, A. was put into possession of premises by B. as care-taker. In 1804 A. wrote a letter to B. acknowledging his title, and proposing to become his tenant, and in 1811, after the death of B., wrote to his devisee, proposing to become the purchaser of the premises. A. died in 1832, since which period C. his son, kept possession. Neither A. nor C. ever paid rent for the premises. In 1841 an ejectment was brought by D., the devisee of B. against C. Held that the right of D. was barred by the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 27, there being no evidence of a holding as care-taker, since 1811. Ellis v. Crawford, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 402, Ex. Held, that though the possession of C. may not have been adverse at the time of the passing of the Act, yet that the ejectment ought to have been brought within five years after, pursuant to the saving in the 15th section. Ib. A landlord built a school-house upon a portion of his property, and appointed a schoolmaster who was paid an annual stipend by the landlord, and was also paid by subscription, and by the scholars, and the schoolmaster was permitted to occupy those premises for the purpose of a school. Held that such occupation for upwards of twenty years did not give the schoolmaster an adverse right under the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 27. Moore v. Doherty, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 449, Q. B. to negative a payment of interest, within twenty years next preceding the issuing of the writ. Held, on demurrer, that the plea was bad. Ib. As to pleading continuances, under the 3 & 4 Vic. c. 105, s. 7, see Brennan v. Monahan, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 545, Ex. Scire facias to revive a judgment. Plea, the Statute of Limitations, (3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 27, 8.40,) averment, "That no part of the principal money secured by the said judgment, or any interest thereon, was paid at any time within twenty years." Replication, the payment of a sum of money" as for, and so much of the interest which had accrued due and payable upon or on account of the said judgment." Held on demurrer that this replication was insufficient. Kealy v. Bodkin, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 383, C.P. [Ball, J, dissentiente.] Pleas, framed for the purpose of taking advan tage of the 6 & 7 Vic. c. 54, and 7 & 8 Vic. c. 27, limiting, after the 1st of January, 1845, the bring. ing of actions relating to presentations, concluded by denying that this suit had been commenced, or that any original writ had been issued in this action at any time on or before the 1st of January, 1845, in manner and form as the plaintiff alleged. The only allusion in the declaration to the original writ, was the statement that the defendant had been sum moned to answer, &c. Held upon special demurrer to those pleas, for having traversed that which was not alleged in the declaration, that they were good. Marquis of Ormonde v. Bishop of Cashel, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 577, C. P. LANDS CONSOLIDATION ACT-See Notice to treat.]-By a local Act power was vested in the Council of the Borough of W. to pur. chase certain properties in a schedule to the Act specified, and to complete the same within five years, and the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, was incorporated with said local Act. The council of the borough served a notice on the lessees of said properties, requiring the particulars of their title, and the amount of compensation they sought. Held that the relation of vendor and purchaser was thereby created, and that the council were bound within a reasonable time to complete such purchase. Reg. v. the Borough of Belfast, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 40, Q. B. T. B. tenant for life of freehold estate under the limitations of a will, levied a fine with proclamations to the use of himself in fee, and devised the lands to H. J. B. for life, with remainder to H. B. in fee. H. J. B. having survived the testator T. B. for upwards of twenty years, died, having devised the same property to trustees in fee for the benefit of LODGMENT OF MONEY IN COURT-See his widow and children. In an ejectment brought by H. B. for the recovery of the lands, Held, that whatever might be the legal effect of the fine, H. J. B. having assumed to take under the will of T. B. and his life-estate being solely referrible thereto, his possession could not be considered an adverse one, within the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 27. Brownrigg v. Cruikshank, 1 Ir. Jur. 212, Q. B. Pleading.]-A plea of the statute of limitations should negative the exceptions contained in that statute. Molony v. O'Brien, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 577, Ex. Therefore, where a plea to a scire facias to revive a judgment, founded on the above section, omitted MONEY. LORD MAYOR-See REGISTRY. LUNATIC-See PROCESS (SERVICE). MAGISTRATES AND JUSTICES OF Jurisdiction.]-The divisional justices of the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 53, to hear and determine, at all times, offences committed in the County of Dublin against the excise laws. Reg. v. Pickering, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 298, Q. B. [Perrin, J. dubitante.] mistake in point of law in his decision. Reg. v. Singleton, 8 Ir. L. Rep 21, Q. B. Justices of the peace for a county at large, have no criminal jurisdiction under the 3 & 4 Vic. c. 108, s. 173, within a county of a city. Reg. v. Byrne, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 513, Q. B. Actions against.]-A. was arrested by a magis-surership of the county of the city of Dublin, and trate on suspicion of felony and sent for identification in the custody of a policeman to the house of a person who could not leave his bed, and with orders that in the event of his being identified he was to be taken from thence to goal. The prisoner having been identified, and in accordance with the foregoing orders committed to goal, and afterwards acquitted at the trial. Held, that in an action against the magistrate, the jury were rightly charged that the conduct of the magistrate was illegal. Held, that the bona fides of the magistrate was no defence. Annette v. Osborne, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 317, Q. B. A portrieve of a town is not entitled to a month's notice before action brought under the 43 Geo. 3, c. 143, s. 1, not being included in the word "justices of the peace," or "governor," or "deputy governor" of any county or place in Ireland. Kelly v. Collis, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 67, Q. B. In an action against a magistrate the court will not set aside a special plea of justification filed in addition to the general issue, though all the special matter could be given in evidence under the general issue. Stewart v. Lynar, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 193, C. P. A notice of action under the provisions of the 43 Geo. 3, c. 143, must follow accurately its provisions Where a notice omitted to specify the place where the transactions complained of occurred, the plaintiff was non-suited. Kane v. Lloyd, 1 Ir. Jur. 208, C. C. [Per Moore, J. and Lefroy, B.] Where a justice of the peace who had authority to require a pedlar to produce his license, and seize his goods if he refused, and upon a conviction for not having a license, might commit him-illegally arrested the pedlar, and seized his goods for refusal to produce it, and committed him to prison before conviction. Held, that the direction to the jury that if they believed the defendant at the time of such arrest was acting bona fide in his magisterial capacity under the 55 Geo. 3, c. 19, which limits the bringing of such actions to three months, they should find for the defendant, four months having elapsed before the writ issued, was a proper direction. O'Reilly v. Lawton, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 290, Q. B. Held that justices of the peace are included in the words "any person or persons," in the 97th section of the 55 Geo. 3, c. 19, notwithstanding the general provision in the 43 Geo. 3, c. 143, s. 7, for their protection. Ib. Held that the provision in the 55 Geo. 3, c. 19, is not repealed by the subsequent enactments upon the subject matter of that statute. Ib. Semble, that where the notice of action against a justice of the peace, describes the plaintiff as of the city of Cork, and the evidence is that he is a Dublin man, the variance is fatal. Ib. The court will not grant a mandamus against a magistrate, unless it appear that there was some The recorder of Dublin is one of the board of magistrates of the county of the city of Dublin, within the meaning of the 49 Geo. 3, c. 20, s. 3, and therefore ought to have been convened or summoned by the lord mayor, to attend an election held on the 21st of February, 1839, for the treanot having been convened or summoned as aforesaid, and having attended at the said election. Held, that the said election was void. [Dissentientibus, Lefroy, B., Richards, B., Crampton, J., and Burton, J.] J Darley in Error v. Smyth, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 376, Held also that neither the divisional justices, appointed under the 48 Geo. 3, c. 140, the 5 Geo. 4, c. 102, and the 1 Vic. c. 25; nor the constabulary justices appointed under the 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 13, Ex: Ch. were entitled to vote at said election. Ib. Held also, that one of the divisional justices of the Castle division, who had been appointed previous to the 1 Vic. c. 25, and sworn in as a justice of the peace for the county of the city of Dublin, was not entitled to vote at said election. Ib. Held also, that the provision in the 49th Geo. 3, c. 20, s. 3, that the lord mayor should "within twenty-one days after the vacancy of the office, convene the board of magistrates," &c. to meet and hold the election for the treasurership, was directory, not mandatory; and that therefore the omission to summon the said board within the twentyone days, did not void the election. Ib. Held also, that an action of assumpsit for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff, was a proper form of action to try the right to said office. Ib. Held also, that the special verdict for finding that the defendant did receive for salary and fees for the execution of the duties of said office, £3011 9s. 4d., and finding a verdict for the plaintiff, with tientibus Jackson, J., Ball, J., Perrin, J. Dubitante, damages, the said sum was correct. Ib. [DissenPennefather, B.] Changing venue.]-See PRACTICE (VENUE.) MANDAMUS-See POOR LAWS. PUBLIC COм PANY. to applot upon the inhabitants, under the 33 Geo. 3, c. 56, and it appeared that these two parishes were united into one by Act of Parliament, the court refused to make them absolute, although it had been the immemorial usage to applot in the usual way. Reg. v. Minister and Churchwardens of St. Catherine's, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 70, Q. B. Generally.]-The court will not grant a mandamus against a magistrate, unless it appear that there was some mistake in his decision in point of Jaw. Reg. v. Singleton, 8, Ir. L. Rep. 21, Q. B. The court will not make absolute a conditional order for a mandamus to compel magistrates "to receive and take informations, touching a forcible entry, and do then according to law, when they have already taken informations, and, on the examination of witnesses, have dismissed the case, as not within their jurisdiction. Reg. v. Gresson, 31 Ir. L. Rep. 5, Q. B. Ir L. Rep. 13, Q. B. A mandamus will be granted to enforce the empanelling of a jury by the Commissioners of the Limerick Bridge, for the purpose of awarding compensation to a person who had been deprived of his emoluments and fees as water-bailiff, under the provisions of the 4 & 5 Wm. 4, c. 84, notwithstanding, that three years have elapsed since the passing of the Act. Reg. v. Limerick Bridge Commissioners, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 15, Q. B. The court will not grant a mandamus to compel a county surveyor to certify for the performance of a contract, although he obstinately refuses so to do, the proper course of proceeding is to apply to the judge at the assizes, who will refuse the surveyor's salary if it appear that he acts improperly. Anonymous, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 444, Q. B. In an appeal, under the Statute 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 53, the notice of appeal must state on the face of it, that the person bringing the appeal is aggrieved by the judgment. Reg. v. Recorder of Dublin, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 440, Q. B. In cases of doubt or difficulty the court will not grant a peremptory mandamus. Reg. at the prosecution of the Treasurer of the City of Dublin v. The Parish of St. Nicholas, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 113, Q. B. The court will not grant a mandamus to compel the treasurer of a fever hospital to appoint a qualified apothecary in the place of a person who was elected, although the latter be not duly qualified as an apothecary, under the 31 Geo. 3, c. 34. Reg. v. Treasurer of Michelstown Fever Hospital, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 7, Q. B. On a mandamus to the treasurer and secretary of a dispensary, to remove the names of two gentlemen who had been elected as medical superintendents, and to enter the name of a third candidate who was not elected, due notice of the objection not having been given to the voters. Held, that it is not necessary that a candidate should have his diploma at the time of the election, if he has passed his final examination for it. Held, also, that although a bye-law requires a superintendent to be properly qualified, by corresponding testimonials, to act as physician, surgeon, and man-midwife, it is not necessary to have a distinct diploma in midwifery, if the general diploma in surgery qualifies the holder to practice in that department. Reg. v. Fairtlough and Halloran, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 76, Q. B. Conditional orders had been obtained for two writs of mandamus to compel the minister and churchwardens of two parishes in the city of Dublin, A mandamus will be granted to compel magistrates to hear a second information for the breach of the excise laws, though they have already dis missed one for the same offence, upon a technical objection. Commissioners of Excise v. Thompson, When a proprietor in the Grand Canal Company applies for a mandamus to compel the directors to allow him to inspect the books and proceedings of the company, under the provisions of the 11 & 12 Geo. 3, c. 31, s. 15, he must shew, that in his application to the directors, that he stated the object for which he required the information he desired to obtain, and that the application was a reasonable one, and that the refusal of the direc tors was unreasonable. Reg. v. The Grand Canal Company, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 337, Q. B. A. and B. were candidates for the office of treasurer of the public monies of the city of Dublin, and A. having been elected, B. brought informa tion in the nature of a qao warranto against him, and obtained judgment of ouster against him, and was subsequently admitted into said office by virtue of a writ of mandamus. C., a third party, then filed an information against B., for usurpation of said office, upon the ground that B's election was void, some of the electors, who were within summons, not having been summoned to the meeting at which he was elected, and not having attended said meeting, and judgment of ouster was pronounced by this court against B. upon this information. B. brought a writ of error to reverse this judgment, and C. applied to this court for a mandamnus to the public officer to hold a new election, upon the ground, that there was then no rightful treasurer in the office, the former election being void upon the conceded facts in the case. Held, that although this mandamus was not an actual execution of the judgment of ouster against B, it was a proceeding consequential upon that judgment, and operating to put it into effect; and, upon that ground, that between the parties to that judgment, it would operate as a supersedeas; and between third parties it was good ground for staying proceedings; and, therefore, the cause shewn against the conditional order for the mandamus was allowed. The Queen v. The Lord Mayor of the City of Dublin, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 147, Q. B. Where a statute directed that at a meeting to be held under such act, for, amongst other pur poses, electing commissioners, and "declared, that every person who shall reside within the city, &c., and who shall have been assessed or charged by the last rate made at vestry, in the parish wherein respect of a such person shall dwell, for, or in dwelling house, or other tenement of the computed annual value, according to the said rate of £20 or more, shall be elegible to be elected commissioners for the purposes of this Act;" and it appeared at said meeting, that the houses of the parishioners had not been rated at vestry for upwards of fifty years, the only assessment in said parish being a certain annual sum charged per acre upon lands, without reference to the actual annual value thereof, and no annual value whatever appearing to be laid on houses; but evidence was given to prove that the houses of those who claimed to be eligible to be elected commissioners were of the annual value of £20, and upwards. Held, that the Statute contemplated the existence of a subsisting vestry-rate in the localities in which it was to be brought into operation, and made that rating the sole test of the qualification of those who were to vote, and those who were elegible to be elected under the Statute, and, therefore, a mandamus was refused to compel the president of such meeting to declare those persons duly elected. Commissioners under this Act, Regina v. Ruxton, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 478, Q. B. Where it appeared that A. had been for nearly twenty years an annual subscriber to a dispensary, and had given general directions to his agent, who was also the treasurer of the dispensary, to pay his subscription every year, and the latter had long acted upon these directions, but omitted to pay A's subscription, which fell due upon the 1st of June, 1839, and when A. discovered this in April, 1840, he had it paid, and then also paid his subscription for 1840 in advance; it also appeared that he continued to act as an existing member of the institution during these years, and under the bye laws, was liable for these subscriptions. Held, that he was qualified to vote for a medical attendant in October, 1840, and that he had substantially complied with the terms of the Statute, (3 & 4 Win. 4, c. 92,) which requires that a person to be entitled to vote "shall have paid his subscription to the treasurer of such dispensary at least one year complete, before any such election shall take place." Reg. v. Shekelton, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 492, Q. B. Quære, is a payment by a subscriber at any time in the current year, for that year, and also in advance for the ensuing year, a sufficient payment to enable the subscriber to vote in the course of the second year, although a year complete has not elapsed since the time of payment of the subscrip tions. Ib. This court will grant a mandamus to compel the visitors of Trinity College, Dublin, to proceed to hear and determine the appeal of a party who complains of an undue election of a scholar in said College. The Queen at the prosecution of Heron v. The Visitors of Trinity College, Dublin, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 41, Q. B. Where on the face of a return to a mandamus, the law and facts are mixed, the court will, before argument on the law, reserve liberty for the prosecutor to file a traverse if necessary. The Queen at the prosecution of Carpenter v. The Corporation of Dublin, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 65, Q. B. those commissioners, calling on them to grant a license to open certain streets for certain purposes therein stated, subject to certain terms and conditions; to which mandamus the commissioners made a return, stating that they, in the due exercise of the discretion vested in them by this Act, and in good conscience, did determine that it was not consistent with their duty, as such commissioners, or for the benefit of the inhabitants within their jurisdiction, that a license should be granted as prayed for; and that they therefore declined to grant it. Held, sufficient return. The Queen at the prosecution of the Alliance Gas Company v. The Paving and Lighting Commissioners, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 448, Q. B. Held, also, where a discretion was vested in those commissioners, this court had no power to issue a mandamus to control that discretion. Ib. The remedy by mandamus is only to compel the performance of an abstract duty, and where fraud has been practised in reference to a contract, such a remedy is not applicable. Where, on an application for a mandamus, a question of doubt or difficulty be raised, the court will not decide the question, but will allow the mandamus to issue, for the purpose of having a return made thereto. Ib. Where a mandamus directed to Poor Law Guardians, commanding them to appoint collectors of poor rates, and to issue their warrants to the persons so appointed, the guardians made a return, stating that they had appointed collectors, all of whom, save one, had entered into securities as required by the Poor Law Act; that one of the collectors had not duly perfected his securities, and that the guardians had passed a resolution not to issue their warrants until all the collectors had been duly appointed, and had perfected their securities. Held, that the return was insufficient, and offered no reasonable excuse for the guardians not doing their duty. The Queen v. The Guardians of the Tuam Union, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 320, Q. B. Costs.]-The question as to whether the 9 Anne, Ireland, was fully argued in the case of The Queen c. 20, amended by the 1 Wm. 4, c. 21, apply to at the prosecution of Moss v. The Corporation of Dublin, in last Hilary Term, and on the 29th of April following. Blackburne, C. J., observed, that the court were of opinion these acts did not extend to this country. Subsequently thereto, the 6 & 7 Vic., c. 67, passed, and by its enactments the court are empowered to award costs in mandamus cases. The Queen v. The Guardians of the Tuam Union, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 321, Q. B. An order directed that a Board of Guardians nisi for an attachment having issued to enforce should be individually liable for costs, and a rule that order, such rule must be served on all the members of the board. Ib. Where plaintiff obtained a mandamus to compel Return.]-The Statute 47 Geo. 3, c. 109, vests a railway company to issue their warrant to a the property in the streets of the city of Dublin in sheriff, to summon a jury, to assess the amount of commissioners, and enacts that no person shall compensation to which he was entitled, and the open those streets for any purpose whatsoever, with jury afterwards awarded him a less sum than the comout having obtained the consent of the commis-pany had previously offered, Held, that he was not sioners. A mandamus having issued directed to entitled to the costs of the mandamus. O'Donnell v. Waterford and Limerick Railway Company, I Ir. Jur. 128, Q. B. MARRIAGE-See CRIMINAL LAW. (BIGAMY.) HUSBAND AND WIFE. ROMAN CATHOLIC. Quære, can Presbyterian Ministers solemnize a marriage binding in law, where both, or either of the parties, are not members of the Presbyterian Church. Reg. v. Mills, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 495, Q. B. A marriage celebrated by a Roman Catholic priest between two Protestants, is illegal, and renders the person celebrating it liable to be indicted for felony. Reg. v. Taggart, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 395. The 7 & 8 Vic., c. 81, leaves untouched the rights of the Roman Catholic Clergy, where the marriage would have been previously legal, and the exemption, in that Act, from penalties, is only in relation to marriages that may now be lawfully celebrated. Ib. Marriage Settlement.]-See Warrant. MARSHAL, (CITY.)-See TRESPASS. The City Marshal is not an officer, within the meaning of the 3 & 4 Vic., c. 108, s. 204, and, therefore, is not entitled to a month's notice before action brought. Smith v. Holbrooke, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 155, Q. B. abide the event of a dispute between one of the plaintiffs and the English attorney, the court will order it to be referred to the officer to inquire as to 3 Ir. L. Rep. 11, Q. B. the rights of the parties thereto. Ansell v. Stewart, Money may be lodged in court in satisfaction of an action of trespass for an illegal distress under the provisions of the 3 & 4 Vic. 4, c. 105. s. 46. Young v. Robinson, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 13, C. P. As to the practice of lodging money in court, see Mallets v. Doolan, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 436, Ex. Where a defendant paid money into court, and the plaintiff, after taking the money out, proceeded to trial, and a verdict was had for the defendant. Held, that the plaintiff had disentitled himself to the costs which he incurred up to the time of the payment into court by the plaintiff. Kershaw v. Lindsay, 1 Ir. Jur. 31, Q. B. In an action of indebitatus assumpsit the copy of the process served upon the defendant had not been endorsed with the amount claimed for debt and costs pursuant to the 52nd G. R. the defendant was permitted, after appearance entered and declaration filed, to lodge in court in discharge of the action-as of the day of the appearance-the sum admitted to be due, and the plaintiff's attorney was ordered to pay the costs of the motion. Cluff v. Quinn, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 169, Ex. Payment of Money out of Court.]-Where money is lodged in court by a sheriff until the conflicting MARSHAL (OF THE MARSHALSEA)-See claims of two parties are decided, the party found to be ARREST. MEDICAL OFFICER.-See GRAND JURY. MANDAMUS. MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT See PEERS AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT. MERITS, (AFFIDAVIT OF)-See PRACTICE. (MOTION.) MESNE PROFITS-See TRESPASS. MINISTERS MONEY-See MANDAMUS. RATES. MISDEMEANOUR-See CRIMINAL LAW. entitled may, when inconvenient to himself to attend, obtain an order for his attorney duly authorized to accept the transfer. Desmond v. Desmond, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 160, Q. B. A notice of motion to draw money out of court, lodged on a plea of tender where the action has not been discontinued, is regular, and when the opposite party would not sign a consent and appeared on the motion it was granted with costs. Chadwick v. Daly, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 176, C. P. Lodging Money in lieu of Bail.]-See BAIL. MORTGAGE-See DEED. EJECTMENT. ELEGIT. STAMPS. MOTION-See PRACTICE. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION—See CORFO RATION. MURDER-See INDICTMENT. MUTINY (ACT)-See ARREST. (Privilege FROM.) NEWSPAPER-See CRIMINAL LAW. EVIDENCE. LIBEL. PRACTICE (Service of PROCESS). NEW TRIAL-See PRACTICE. |