Attorney-General v Dublin Corporation

JurisdictionIreland
CourtChancery Division (Ireland)
Judgment Date02 June 1917
Docket Number(1917. No. 109.)
Date02 June 1917

CHANCERY DIVISION

Appeal.

(1917. No. 109.)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
and

DUBLIN CORPORATION.

Attorney-General v. HallIR [1897] 2 I. R. 426.

Attorney-General v. Herrick Ambl. 712.

Baker & Selmon's ContractELR [1907] 1 Ch. 238.

Batten, Proffitt, and Scott v. Dartmouth Harbour CommissionersELR 45 Ch. D. 612.

Belfast Guardians v. Belfast Corporation.IR [1910] 2 I. R. 534, 536 (note).

Belfast Guardians v. Belfast CorporationIR [1910] 2 I. R. 534.

Belfast Poor Law Guardians v. Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of BelfastIR [1910] 2 I. R. 534.

Blake v. BainELR [1908] A. C. 371.

Blake v. BayneELR [1908] A. C. 371.

Board of Trade v. BlackELR 13 App. Cas. 570.

Bradley v. FloodUNK 16 Ir. Ch. 236.

Bradley v. Flood 16 Ir. Ch. R. 236.

Cooper v. CooperELR L. R. 7 H. L. 53.

Cope v. BreslinIR [1901] 1 I. R. 466.

De Vesci v. O'ConnellELR [1908] A. C. 298.

Domville v. CallwellIR [1907] 2 I. R. 617, at p. 640.

Driver v. FrankENRENR 3 M. & S. 25; 8 Taunt 468.

Dublin County Council v. Kilmainham Urban District CouncilIR [1902] 2 I. R. 485, 495.

Ex parte WaltonELR 17 Ch. D. 756.

Ex parte WaltonELR 17 Ch.D.746, at p. 756.

Farrer v. NashENR 35 Beav. 167.

Ford v. The Earl of ChesterfieldENR 21 Beav. 426.

Gover's CaseELR 1 Ch. D., at p. 188.

Halkett v. Earl of DudleyELR [1907] 1 Ch. 590.

Hamill v. MurphyUNK 12 L. R. Ir. 400.

Handcock v. HandcockIR 1 I. Ch. R. 444.

Handcock v. HandcockIR 1 I. E. R. 444.

Hill v. East and West India Dock Co. 9 A. C. 448.

Hilliard v. MoriartyIR [1894] 1 I. R. 316.

Holland v. ChambersIR [1894] 2 I. R. 285.

Hussey v. DomvilleIR [1900] 1 I. R. 417, 428.

Hussey v. DomvilleIR [1900] 1 I. R. 417.

Hussey v. DomvilleIR [1900] 1 I. R., at pp. 444, 454.

In Carrick v. Wigan Tramway Co.UNK [1893] W. N. 98.

In National Provincial Bank of England v. GamesELR 31 Ch. D. 582, at p. 594.

In re ColeyELR [1903] 2 Ch. 102.

In re DeanELR 41 Ch. D. 552, at p. 557.

In re DeanELR 41 Ch. D. 552.

In re DrewELR [1899] 1 Ch. 336.

In re ElliottELR [1896] 2 Ch. 353.

In re Griffith's PolicyELR [1903] 1 Ch. 739, at p. 742.

In re HockingELR [1898] 2 Ch. 567.

In re Hutchins 11 I. J. N. S. 400.

In re Laffan & Downes' ContractIR [1897] 1 I. R. 469.

In re Laffan v. Downes' ContractIR [1897] 1 I. R. 469.

In re LoryUNK 7 T.L.R. 419.

In re Lyne's Trusts L. R. S Eq. 65.

In re M'MahonIR [1901] 1 I. R. 489.

In re Marine Mansions Co.ELR L. R. 4 Eq. 601.

In re MorrisonELR 40 Ch. D. 30.

In re WhistlerELR 35 Ch. D. 561, 565.

In re WhiteELR [1901] 1 Ch. 570

In re WilliamsELR [1897] 2 Ch. 12.

Kay L. J.ELR [1896] 1 Q. B. 365.

Kenebel v. Scrafton 13 Ves. 370.

Laverty v. LavertyIR [1907] 1 I. R. 9.

Lewis v. StephensonUNK 67 L. J. Q. B. 296, at p. 300.

Lewis v. StephensonUNK 67 L. J. Q. B. 296.

Longworth v. Bellamy 40 L. J. Ch. 513.

Lord Sudeley v. The Attorney-GeneralELR [1897] A. C. 11.

Lord Sudeley v. The Attorney-GeneralELR [1897] A. C. 20.

M Spadden v. PatersonDLTR 39 I. L. T. R. 122.

M'Cusker v. Commissioner of ValuationDLTR 36 I. L. T. R. 176, 180.

M'Dermott v. Caldwell I. R. 10 Eq. 504.

M'Dermott V. Caldwell I. R. 10 Eq. 504.

M'Dermott 1 Dr. & Walsh, 198, at

M'Laughlin v. CampbellIR [1906] 1 I. R. 588.

M'Loughlin & M'Grath's ContractDLTR 48 I. L. T. R. 87.

M'Spadden v. PatersonDLTR 39 I. L. T. R. 122.

M'Spadden v. Patterson 39 I. L.T. R. 122.

Mellick's CaseENR Jac. 180, at p. 184.

Morice v. Bishop of Durham 9 Ves. 405; 10 Ves 521.

Nash v. AllenELR 42 Ch. D. 54.

Nelson v. BradyIR 4 I. E. R. 359.

Nelson v. BradyIR 4 I.E.R. 359.

O' Hanlon v. LogueSC [1906] 11. R. 247, at p. 286.

Partington v. Attorney-GeneralELR L. R. 4 H. L. 100.

Peppin v. Bickford 3 Ves. 570.

per Manners L. C. in Powerscourt v. PowerscourtUNK 1 Molloy 616, at p. 618.

Peyton v. M'Dermott 1 Dr. & Walsh 198, at p. 234.

Peyton v. M'Dermott 1 Dr. & Walsh 198.

Peyton v. M'Dermott 1 Dr. & Walsh 234.

Peyton v. M'Dermott 1 Dr. & Walsh, 198.

Pippin v. Bickford 3 Ves. 570.

Queen (Wexford County Council) v. the Local Government BoardIR [1902] 2 I. R. 349, at p. 373.

Queen v. Corporation of DublinUNK 2 L. R. Ir., at pp. 376, 377.

Radford v. Willis L. R. 7 Ch. A. 7.

Re Venn & Furze's ContractELR [1894] 2 Ch. 101.

Re VerrellELR [1903] 1 Ch. 65.

Roche v. M'DermottIR [1901] 1 I. R. 394, at p. 399.

Taylor v. Gorman 1 Dr. & Walsh, 235 n.

Taylor v. Gorman 1 Dr. & Walsh, at p. 235n.

Tevlin v. GilsenanIR [1902] 1 I. R. 514.

Thomas v. Lambert 3 Ad. & R. 61.

Thomson's EstateIR [1907] 1 I. R. 311.

Thornhill v. NixouUNK [1904] W. N. 112.

Townsend v. CarnsENR 3 Hare 257.

Truell v. TyssonUNK 21 B. 444.

Vanneck v. BenhamELR [1917] 1 Ch. 60, 76.

Vanneck v. BenhamELR [1917] 1 Ch. 75.

Villiers v. HolmesIR [1917] 1 I. R. 166.

Villiers v. HolmesIR [1917] 1 I. R. 167.

White v. The Bishop of PeterboroughENR Jac. 402.

Wilson v. Lord BuryELR 5 Q. B. D. 518, at p. 531.

Wright v. KirbyENR 23 Beav. 463.

Dublin Police District — Police Rate — Apportionment between county borough and outside area —

Tor.. I.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 401 ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. DUBLIN CORPORATION. 31. R. 1917. (1917. No. 109.) March 22, 23, 28. Dublin Police District—Police Rate—Apportionment between county borough and outside area—Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898 (61 4. 62 Vict. Appeal. c. 37), sect. 65, sub-s. 2, sect. 66. May 7, 8. June 2. Under the Dublin Police Acts, as amended by the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, sect. 66, Sub-ss. 2 and 4, the Commissioner of Police is entitled to raise for the maintenance of the police force an amount not exceedÂing eight pence in the pound on the annual value of the rateable hereditaments in the police district, which is apportionable between the city of Dublin and the rest of the district according to rateable value. Pursuant to sect. 65; sub-s. 1, of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, a revaluation of the county borough of Dublin was made by which the total valuation of the rateable hereditaments in the borough was 'largely increased. This revaluation came into force on April 1st, 1916. Held, by the Court of Appeal (Sir Ignatius O'Brien L.C. and Molony L.J., Ronan L.J. dissenting), affirming the decision of the Master of the Rolls, that sect. 65, sub-s. 2, of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, applied to the police district as if it was a union ; that following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Belfast Guardians v. Belfast Corporation (No. 1), [1910] 2 I. R. 534, the word " at " in sect. 65, sub-s. 2, was to be construed as meaning " before," not " after " ; and that, therefore, the estimate and apportionment made in March, 1917, should have been made on the old valuation. TRIAL OF ACTION. The following statement is taken from the statement of claim : By the Dublin Police Act, 1836 (6 & 7 Wm. 4, c. 29), proÂvision was made establishing a new and more efficient system of police within the limits of the police district of Dublin Metropolis. The said Act empowered the Lord Lieutenant by warrant under his hand and seal to appoint two fit persons as justices of the peace for and of the said police district : and by the 24th section of the said Act the said justices were authorized to raise and levy the like rates and assessments on all houses and tenements within 1917—VoL. I. 2 402 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1917. M. B. the said police district as were theretofore authorized to be collected, 1917. raised, assessed, and levied. ATTORNEY- By the Dublin Police Act, 1837 (7 Wm. 4 & 1 Viet. c. 25), GENERAL sect. 4, it was enacted as follows :—" And whereas it is expedient V. CORPORATION to provide for the more just and equal assessment of all houses, OF DUBLIN. - lands, and tenements in the said districts (meaning the police district of Dublin Metropolis) towards the maintenance of the said police, and for the purposes of the said Acts and this Act ; be it therefore enacted that it shall and may be lawful for the said justices appointed under the said first recited Act of the last session of Parliament (that is the said Act (6 & 7 Wm. 4, c. 29)) to raise and levy from time to time, on all houses, lands, and tenements situate and being within the said district such rates or taxes as they shall from time to time find necessary for the maintenance of the said police, and the several purposes of the said Acts and this Act ; provided that the sum or sums to be so raised and levied shall not exceed in the whole in any one year eightpence in the pound on the annual value of such houses, lands, and tenements ; and the said justices shall from time to time as they find occasion by warrant under their hands appoint one or more proper person or persons to rate and assess all such houses, lands, and tenements to such rate as shall from time to time be fixed and determined by the said justices, not exceeding the amount of eightpence in the pound, according to the full and fair annual value thereof : and every such assessor or assessors shall, within forty days after the delivery to' him or them of the warrant of his or their appointÂment, deliver to the said justices au assessment for each place named in such warrant, which assessment shall specify the names of the several owners or occupiers of the respective houses, lands, and tenements comprised in such assessment, the full and fair annual value of the same, and the amount of police tax chargeable thereon respectively." By the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 91 the powers of applotting, levying, and collecting the police rate were vested in the Collector-General of Rates for the city of Dublin. By sect. 30 of the said Act the said justices appointed as aforesaid were authorized to estimate the amount necessary for the maintenance of the police force for twelve months next following the first day of January in each Vot. I.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 403 year, such estimate to be transmitted to the Collector-General, M. R. and the said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Julia Maria Murphy, A Registered Owner of Land
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 7 June 1918
    ...OWNER OF LAND. In re CallanDLTR 47 I. L. T. R. 235. Lytle v. Baker Unreported. The Attorney-General v. The Corporation of DublinIR [1917] 1 I. R. 401, at p. 436. Land Registry — Practice — Registered owner a lunatic not so found — Execution of transfer by Committee — Appointment of Guardian......
  • Re an Arranging Debtor
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 1 January 1921
    ...Unreported. (1) Unreported. (1) Unreported. (2) [1901] 2 Ch. 93. (3) 27 L. R. Ir. 271. (1) 9 A. C. 448. (2) L. R. 17 Ch. Div. 746. (3) [1917] 1 I. R. 401, (4) [1901] 2 Ch. 93. (1) L. R. 22 Q. B. D. 145. (2) [1897] 1 Ch. 633. (3) [1900] 2 I. R., at p. 438. K. B. D., App., In re an Arranging ......
  • Re Sandes' Trusts
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 2 November 1920
    ...(1) 16 W. R. 1077. (2) [1907] 1 I. R. 311. (3) 1 Ch. D. 182. (4) [1908] A. C. 298. (1) 17 Ch. D., at p. 756. (2) 9 App. Cas. 456. (3) [1917] 1 I. R. 401, (4) 17 Ch. D. 746, at p. 756. (5) [1908] A. C. at p. 315. (1) 1 Bro. Ch. 503; 1 White & Tudor, 394. (2) 16 W. R. 1077. (1) 1 Ch. D. 182. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT