Browne v Ibbetson

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 November 1845
• Date: 12 November 1845
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench.

BROWNE

and

IBBETSON.

Berry v. Adamson 6 B. & Cress. 530.

Bates v. Pilling 2 Cr. & Mees. 374.

James v. Askew 8 Ad. & Ell. 351.

Lamond v. EiffeENR 3 G. & Dav. 259.

Robinson v. PowellENR 5 Mees. & Wels. 479.

Arrowsmith v. Le MesssurierUNK 2 New Rep. 211.

Arkenheim v. ColegraveENR 13 Mees. & Wels. 621.

Duncan v. Jacob 3 Jurist, 1502.

Grainger v. HillENR 4 Bing. N. C. 212.

Dunn v. BatemanUNK 7 Dowl. P. C. 105.

Weaver v, Burn & Gaffikin 3 Ir. Law Rep. 440.

66 CASES AT LAW. M. T. 1845. Queen'sBeneh.. BROWNE v. IBBETSON. Nov. 12. Where a An order nisi had been granted, that the fiat upon which the capias capias had for the arrest of the defendant was obtained, be set aside, and that been placed in the hands of a the defendant be discharged from the custody of the Sheriff of the sheriff for the arrest of a de- county Roscommon, upon entering a common appearance ; and that fendant, and the sum of £330, lodged with the said Sheriff in lieu of bail, be he thereupon waited on the paid over to the defendant : this order had been made on the ground defendant, and of the insufficiency of the affidavit upon which the fiat had issued; told him a writ had been and also, on the ground that the fiat was irregular and defective, there lodged with him for his being no day stated therein upon which it was obtained. The fiat arrest, and the had issued on the joint affidavit of the plaintiff and his brother, defendant thereupon paid which stated that plaintiff's wife having eloped from him, his brother to the sheriff on going in search of her, found her living in the barrack-room of the sum en dorsed on the the defendant, who was an officer in the army ; that he there had a writ in lieu of long interview with her in the absence of the defendant, on which special bail: Held, that occasion she told him that defendant was a man of large fortune, and such a pro- intended taking her to France, and that both deponents believed ceeding did not amount to an that the defendant would leave this country to avoid paying damages arrest. Macdonogh and Copinger showed cause. They are not entitled to make this order absolute. This is not a proceeding that comes within the Act of Parliament. The defendant was never arrested, he paid £300 in lieu of bail, the amount fixed by the Judge who granted the fiat. The 3 & 4 Vic. c. 105, is the statute under which these proceedings took place, and the 5th section is the one giving jurisdiction to the Court. That section says, " It shall be lawful for any person arrested upon any such writ " of...