Attorney General, at the relation of T. MURPHY, v LE HUNTE

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 03 November 1858
• Date: 03 November 1858
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, at the relation of T. MURPHY,

and

LE HUNTE.

The Attorney-General v. Oglander 1 Ves. 255.

The Attorney-General v. East India Co.ENR 11 Sim. 380.

Banks v. CarterUNK 12 Jur. 366.

The Attorney-General v. BosanquetENR 16 Sim. 225.

The Attorney-General v. Smythies 2 M'N. & Gor.225.

The Attorney-General v. AndrewsENR 1 Kay, 268.

The Attorney-General v. The Mayor, &c., of WiganENR 1 Swans. 269.

The Attorney-General v. BrownENR 11 Hare, 205.

The Attorney-General v. Eastlake Cr. & Phil. 1.

The Attorney-General v. WilsonENR 2 Phil. 216.

Bright v. NorthENR 2 Russ. & M. 470

Ware v. The Grand Junction Waterworks Co.ENR 11 Beav. 120.

The Attorney-General v. The Corporation of LitchfieldENR11 Beav. 120.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 437 1858. Rolls. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, at the relation 'of-T. MURPHY, July 1, 2. Nov. 3. THE object of this suit, which purported to be a cause petition, by The trustees of a bridge way of information and bill, and the statements in the petition and were author affidavit, appear sufficiently from his Honor's judgment. The ques- teridv'ateAY cat of tions discussed at the bearing were, first, as to the frame of the 1847, to raise by present- petition ; secondly, the disposal of the 1600 which had been ment out of the county levied in mistake by the grand jury of the county of Wexford ; cess, and by instalments, a thirdly, the costs of the unsuccessful application to Parliament, in sum of 10,000, for 1857, for a bill to authorise the trustees of the Wexford Bridge to the purpose of building a raise a further sum of 12,000. bridge. In 1851, when X160 had Mr. Brewster, Mr. F. A. Fitzgerald, and Mr. J. E. Walsh, for been so raised, another c the petitioner. was pas t se Ad, The Solicitor-General, Mr. Lawson and Mr. J. F. Elrington, reciting that X1800 had for the respondent. been levied, and empowerÂÂing the trustees On the first question, The Attorney-General v. Oglander (a); to raise the entire unpaid The Attorney-General v. East India Co. (b); Banks v. Carter (c); balance of 8400 at the Spring Assizes of 1852. While the Act was passing through Parliament, and before it received the Royal assent, a further instalment of 1600 was presented by the grand jury, under the Act of 1847.-Held, that the Act of 1851 only authorised the levying of 6800, the unassessed and unpaid balance of the 10,000, the 8400 being an inaccurate calculation, by which the Court was not bound. The entire 8400 having been levied, the Court ordered the trustees to bring in .1600 to the credit of a cause petition matter, by way of information and bill, at the relation of one of the rate-payers. The trustees, with the approval, and in acordance with a resolution of the grand jury, brought into Parliament a bill to enable them to levy a further sum, which bill was thrown out by the Lords, for non-compliance with the Standing Orders of the House..-=He/d, that the trustees could not be allowed the costs of the bill. A cause petition, by way of information and bill, should state, and proof should be given of, the individual interest of the person named as relator. Quare.-Whether the description of the relator, as a rate-payer, in the title of the petition and affidavit verifying the petition, are sufficient ? (a) 1 Ves. 253. (b) 11 Sim, 380. (c) 12 Jur. 366. 438 CHANCERY REPORTS. The Attorney-General v. Bosanquet (a); The Attorney-General v. Smythies (b): on the second question, 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 116, s. 45 : on the third question, viz., the costs, The Attorney-General v. The Corporation of Norwich (c), The Attorney-General v. AnÂÂdrews (d); The Attorney-General v. The Mayor, '5.e., of Wigan (e); The Attorney-General v. Brown (f); The Attorney-General v. Eastlake (g); The Attorney-General v. Wilson (h); Bright v. North (i); Ware v. The Grand Junction Waterworks Co. (k); The Attorney-General v. The Corporation of Litchfield (1), were cited. The MASTER OF THE ROLLS. Nov. 3. Judgment. In this cause a petition has been filed under the Chancery Re gulation Act, in the nature of an information and bill; and unless the heading of the petition is to be considered to amount to an allegation that the relator Thomas Murphy is a rate-payer, and unless the short form of affidavit under the statute is to be consiÂÂdered as verifying such allegation, there is no evidence that Thomas Murphy is a rate-payer ; and if so, the petition would only be susÂÂtainable as an information, and not as a petition in the nature of an. information and bill ; and it may be doubtful whether, merely as an information, the Attorney-General would have sanctioned the filing of it. However, as it may be considered as an information sanctioned by him, it will be necessary to consider the case. The petition prays that it may be declared that the respondents, the trustees of the Wexford Bridge, ought not to have received from the treasurer of the county the sum of 1600, in the petition menÂÂtioned, over and above the sum of 10,000 which they were entitled to receive but of the county cess payable by the rate-payers of the (a) 11 Law Jour., N. S., Ch., 43. (5) 2 M. & Cr. 135; S. C., 15 Law Jour., N. S., Ch. 35. (e) 16 Sim. 225. (d) 2 il`N. & Gar. 225. (e) 1 Ray, 268. (f) 1 Swans. 269. (g) 11 Hare, 205. (h) Cr. & Phil. 1. (i) 2 Phil. 216. (k) 2 Russ. & M. 470. (1) 11 Bear. 120. CHANCERY REPORTS. 439 county of Wexford, under the provisions of the Acts of Parliament 1858. Rolls. in the petition mentioned, and that it may be declared that the sum ATTORNEY of 1600, paid to the said trustees in the year 1851, was properly GENERAL applicable in part discharge of the sum of 8400, stated in the Act LE RUNTY. of 1851 to be then due ; or that it may declared that the said sum of 1600 should not have been paid to or kept by the said trustees after the passing of the said Act ; and that the said trustees may be ordered to transfer...