Bower v Griffith, and Thers

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 17 January 1868
• Date: 17 January 1868
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Q. Bench.

BOWER

and

GRIFFITH, AND THERS.

Horsley v. BellENRAmbler, 770; S. C. 1 Br. Ch. C. 100, n.

Cullen v. The Duke of Queensberry1 Br. Ch. C. 100.

Eaton v. BellENR5 B. & Ald. 34.

Doubleday v. MuskettENR7 Bing. 110.

Bogg v. PearseENR10 C. B. 534.

Addison v. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of PrestonENR12 C. B. 108.

Doubleday v. MuskettENR7 Bing. 110.

Lefroy v. Gore1 J. & L. 571.

Colquhoun v. NolanUNK13 Ir. L. R. 248.

Horsley v. BellENRAmbler, 770.

Eaton v. BellENR1 B. & Ald. 34.

Cole v. GreenUNK7 Sc. N. R. 682; S. C. 6 M. & Gr. 872.

Todd v. EmlyENR8 M. & W. 505.

Kelner v. BaxterELRL. R. 2 C. P. 174.

Pilbrow v. Pilbrowƒ€™s Atmospheric Railway and Canal Propulsion CompanyENR5 C. B. 440.

Fox v. CliftonENR6 Bing. 776.

The Attorney-General v. The Corporation of Belfast4 Ir. Ch. R. 119.

Regina v. The Town Council of Dublin7 Ir. Jur. N. S. 317.

Bright v. NorthENR2 Phillips, 216.

Eastern Counties Railway Company v. HawkesENR5 H. L. C. 331.

Bogg v. PearceENR10 C. B. 534.

The Conservators of the River Tone v. Ash10 B. & Cr. 349.

Bolton v. The Guardians of the Mallow Union8 Ir. C. L. App. 9.

The Queen v. The Commissioners of Sewers for the County of Norfolk15 Q. B. 549.

Suttonƒ€™s HospitalUNK10 Rep. 26 b.

Conservators of the River Tone v. AshENR10 B. & C. 349.

Colquhoun v. Nolan and others, Town Commissioners City of CashelUNK13 Ir. L. R. 248.

Cullen v. The Duke of Queensberry1 Bro. Cha. Ca. 100.

The Queen v. The Dublin Corporation7 Ir. Jur. N. S. 317.

Bright v. North2 Phil. Eq. R. 216.

Eastern Railway v. HawkesENR5 H. L. C. 331.

Bogg v. PearseENR10 C. B. 534.

Addison v. Mayor of PrestonENR12 C. B. 108.

Horsley v. BellENRENRAmbler, 770; S. C. 1 Bro. C. C. 100.

The Conservators of the River Tone v. AshENR10 B. & C. 349.

Colquhoun v. NolanUNK13 Ir. L. R. 248.

Bright v. NorthENR2 Phillips, 216.

Horsley v. BellENR1 Bro. C. C. p. 100, n.

Eaton v. BellENR5 B. & Ald. 34.

Suttonƒ€™s HospitalUNK10 Rep. 26 b.

The Conservators of the River Tone v. Ash10 B. & Cr. 349.

Regina v. The Town Council of Dublin7 Ir. Jur. N. S. 317.

Rothwell v. The Corporation of DublinUNK12 Ir. L. r. 206.

Horsley v. BellENRAmbler, 770; S. C. 1 Br. Ch. C. 100.

Auty v. HutchinsonENR6 C. B. 266.

Todd v. Emly and AnotherENR8 M. & W. 505.

Public Commissioners Personal Liability of Applicability of Rates to opposing a Bill in Parliament.

546 THE IRISH REPORTS. BOWER v. GRallfil., AND OTHERS. Public Commissioners-Personal Liability of-Applicability of Bates to oppos ing a Bill in Parliament. The 9th section of the Act, under which the Commissioners for the Town and Harbour of Sligo are constituted, enacts that " All the powers and authoÂÂrities by this Act granted to the said Commissioners shall and may be exerÂÂcised by the major part of them who shall attend at any meeting to be holden in pursuance of this Act, the number of such Commissioners present at such meeting not being less than seven; and all the orders and proceedings of the major part of such Commissioners present at such their several meetings, shall have the same force and effect as if the same were made or done by all such Commissioners for the time being." The 132nd section specifies the purÂÂposes to which the rates, &c., payable under the Act should be applied; and declares that they should be applied " to no other use, intent, or purpose, whatsoever." The Defendants were some of the Commissioners appointed under that Act. At a meeting of the Commissioners, duly convened, a resolution was proÂÂposed, that a Bill then about to be introduced into Parliament, intituled, " The Sligo Borough Improvement Bill," should be opposed by the Commissioners. This resolution having been passed by the majority of the Commissioners then present, a protest was handed in, signed by four of the Defendants, protesting against the resolution, on the ground that expenditure by the Commissioners for such a purpose would be a misapplication of the rates. None of the other Defendants were present at the meeting. Opposing a Bill in Parliament was not mentioned in the 132nd section as one of the purposes to which the rates could be applied. The Plaintiff, a civil engineer, was employed by the Commissioners to opÂÂpose that Bill ; but none of the Defendants were present at any of the meetings at which his employment was resolved upon, or interfered in any way in the matter. An action having been brought against the Defendants, personally, for work done and services performed by the Plaintiff for them, at their request, in oppoÂÂsing a Bill in Parliament, Held (dissentiente GEORGE, J.), that the 9th section of the Act authorized the majority of the Commissioners present at any meeting to bind the minority only in relation to matters coming within the powers of the Commissioners under their Act. That the purpose for which the Plaintiff was employed-viz., opposing a Biil in Parliament, not being one to which the rates could be applied under the Q. Bench. 132nd section, the resolution of the majority did not bind the Defendants; and, 1868. therefore, whatever remedy the Plaintiff had could only be against those per sons who actually employed him. BOWER V. GRIFFITH. Tm action in this case was brought by the Plaintiff, a civil engineer, against seven persons, Commissioners for the Town and. Harbour of Sligo ; but the Plaint sought to charge them personÂÂally, and not in their representative capacity. The Summons and Plaint contained. four counts. In the first count, the Plaintiff claimed 410 5s. 10d. for work, journeys and attendances done, performed, and bestowed by the Plaintiff as a witness for the Defendants, at their request, in opposition to certain Bills pending before Parliament, known as "The Sligo Borough Improvement Bill," and. " The Sligo Port and Harbour Bill "; and for money paid. and expenses necessarily incurred by the Plaintiff as such witness, at the Defendants' request. The remainÂÂing paragraphs of the Plaint were common indebitatus counts. The defences were traverses of the material allegations in the respective counts of the Summons and Plaint. Issues thereon. The case was tried at the Summer Assizes of 1867 for the county of Kildare, before the Lord Chief Justice and a special jury. It appeared from the evidence of the Plaintiff that he was a civil engineer, and had some experience in connexion with parliamenÂÂtary schemes. On the 29th December, 1866, he received. from Mr. Mons, the Secretary of the Commissioners, the following letter :- December 28th, 1866. DEAR SIR, A Bill for the improvement of this town and. plans for water-works have been lodged by Messrs. Kernaghan and SaunÂÂders ; and. the Town and Harbour Commissioners have resolved. to oppose the Bill, and have appointed a Committee to direct proceedÂÂings. I have been desired. by this Committee to ask you whether you can conveniently meet them here to examine the plans deposited, and to consult with the Committee on this subject. Say how soon you could meet them ; and, as no time should be lost, if there 548 THE IRISH REPORTS. Q. Bench. be a petition on standing orders, the sooner you can come the 1868. better. Yours very truly, BOWER v. M. MONS. GRIFFITH. J. Bower, Esq. The Plaintiff proceeded to Dublin, and had an interview with Mr. Mons, when it was arranged that he should go to Sligo as soon as possible. Accordingly, the Plaintiff went to Sligo, and was present at two meetings of a sub-committee, which had been appointed by a resolution of the Commissioners, but none of the Defendants were present at either of these meetings. In conseÂÂquence of a resolution passed at one of these meetings, and of a telegram from Mr. Sedley, the solicitor of the Commissioners, the Plaintiff proceeded to London for the purpose of opposing the Bill on standing orders. The Plaintiff was then proceeding to prove the performance of the work and services for which the action was brought, when the Defendants' counsel admitted that the work was done, and that the charges were fair and seasonable. It was also proved on behalf of the Plaintiff that on the 12th November, 1866, a special meeting of the Commissioners was held to consider the Bill proposed to be introduced by Messrs. KerÂÂnaghan and Saunders for the improvement of the town and harÂÂbour of Sligo (at which meeting some of the Defendants were present), when the following resolution was come to :-" That as Messrs. Kernaghan and Saunders have not consulted either the Town and Harbour Commissioners, the Corporation, or the inhaÂÂbitants of the town generally, we hereby repudiate the Messrs. Kernaghan and Saunders' interference in our affairs ; and we shall be prepared at the proper time to give the proposed measure all the opposition in our power, the works being too expensive, and beyond the requirements of the town of Sligo." Subsequently to this resolution having been passed, a question arose whether the funds at the disposal of the Commissioners could be lawfully expended in opposing the Bill. Accordingly, a case was subÂÂmitted to counsel for his opinion whether the Commissioners would be authorized in making such an expenditure ; and his opinion having been received, the following resolution was passed Q. Bench. on the 10th December, 1866 :-" That the Commissioners having 1868. read the case submitted to the Attorney-General, and the. opinion BOWER thereon, in which they are informed that they are authorized by v. GRIFFITH. law to expend a reasonable portion of the funds at their disposal in opposing Bills about to be introduced by Messrs. Kernaghan and Saunders, the Commissioners hereby resolve and determine that it would be for the benefit of the town of Sligo and the harbour that the passing of the said Bills should be prevented, as they are most objectionable and injurious to the interests of the and harbour, both in the preamble and clauses ; and the Commissioners therefore...