The Lord Mayor, &C, of Dublin v Michael Angelo Hayes

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 January 1877
• Date: 20 January 1877
• Court: Court of Exchequer Chamber (Ireland)

Com. Pleas.

THE LORD MAYOR, ALDERMEN, AND BURGESSES OF DUBLIN

and

MICHAEL ANGELO HAYES.

The Corporation of Liverpool v. WrightENR John. 359.

Marshal of the City of Dublin — Illegal agreement — Public policy — 3 & 4 Vict. c. 108, ss. 93, 05 — 26 Geo. 3, c. 43 — 28 Geo. 3, c. 49.

226 THE IRISH REPORTS. U. R. THE LORD MAYOR, ALDERMEN, AND BURGESSES or DUBLIN v. MICR' A -EL ANGELO HAYES. Marshal of the City of Dublin-Illegal agreement-Public policy-3 (3- 4 Viet. c. 108, 88. 93, 95-26 Geo. 3, c. 43-28 Geo. 3, c. 49. The Marshal of the City of Dublin is by virtue of his office Registrar of the Pawnbrokers of Ireland, and as Marshal and Registrar is entitled to receive considerable fees ; and the Defendant, in consideration of his being appointed to the office of Marshal by the Corporation of Dublin, entered into an agreement with them to accept, by way of fixed salary, a sum less than the fees, and to pay over the fees to the City Treasurer :-Held, that the agreement was illegal, as being against public policy. The Corporation of Liverpool v. Wright (John. 359) followed. ACTION on a bond executed to the Plaintiffs by the Defendant on his appointment as Marshal of the City of Dublin, tried before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE of this Court at the Sittings after Hilary Term, 1876. The plaint--after stating that the bond was subject to a condiÂtion that if the Defendant should be appointed Marshal of the City of Dublin he should account for and pay over to the City Treasurer all fees and moneys which he should receive as Marshal, and deposit a statement in writing of such fees and moneys-assigned as a breach that, although the Defendant had been appointed Marshal each year for the years 1868-1871 and as such received fees and moneys, he did not account, or pay over, or deposit a statement, pursuant to the condition. The Defendant pleaded, (1) that the several appointments of the Defendant as Marshal were void on the ground that same should have been during good behaviour and not for a year merely, and also inasmuch as a fixed salary was paid to the Defendant instead of the fees which he was entitled to receive as incidental to his office ; (2 and 3) that the bond was void by reason of the Defendant's appointment having been made in purÂsuance of an agreement that he should relinquish the fees of the office for Plaintiffs' use, and accept a salary at a fixed amount in VOL. X.] COMMON LAW SERIES. 227 lieu thereof ; (4) that the moneys in the plaint referred to were fees Com. Pleas. of the said office. The Defendant also traversed the alleged 1876. breaches of the condition. TILE LORD The Plaintiffs gave in evidence, and relied upon several entries MAYOR, &rex., OF in the Corporation Assembly rolls and books from the appointment v. of Edward Harris in the year 1665 to the appointment of the HAYES. Defendant, for the purpose of showing that the appointment of Marshal by the Corporation was always either during the pleasure of the Corporation or...