Clarke v Buchanan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 24 November 1886
• Date: 24 November 1886
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

Appeal.

PORTER,M.R., SIR MICHEAL MORRIS,C.J., and FITZ GIBBON and BARRY,L.JJ.

CLARKE

and

BUCHANAN

Bradley v. BaylisELR 8 Q. B. Div. 195.

Morfee v. Novis Ibid. 200.

Hasson v. ChambersUNK 18 L. R. Ir. 68.

Stribling v. HalseELR 16 Q. B. Div. 246.

Parliament — Registration of voters — Inhabitant householder — Occupation as owner or tenant — Permissive user of room allotted to claimant — 48 Vict. c.3, s. 3.

Vor.. XX.] Q. B., O. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. 201 ejectment. These items are within Order X., Rule 12, of April, Ex. Div. 1878. A writ is a proceeding. By section 3 of Judicature Act, 1887. DALL TIS " action " is defined as " a proceeding " commenced by writ. As to items 70, 71, and 72, counsel's fee should be allowed RICHARDSON. in any case where a fee to counsel would have been allowed for settling issues under the Common Law Procedure Act, 1853 and 1856. Such a fee would not have been allowed in a simple action for goods sold and a traverse, but, in this action, there were seven counts in the statement of claim, and twenty-four paragraphs in the defence, many of them being of a very special nature, which could not be dealt with except upon the advice of counsel. THE LORD CHIEF BARON held that the Taxing Officer was right in allowing the items 3-5 and 70-72. Solicitor for the plaintiff : G. Byrne. Solicitor for the defendant : III F. Leachman. CLARKE v. BITCHA.NAN (1). Appeal. 1886. (DOGHERTY'S CASE.) Nov. 24. Parliament-Registration of voters-Inhabitant householder-Occupation as owner or tenant-Permissive user of room allotted to claimant-48 Viet. c. 3, s. 3. During the qualifying year, and for some time previously, a separate room in the dwelling-house of claimant's father was allotted by him to the claimant, who slept in and occupied the room, separately and exclusively for his own purÂposes, as his own. The claimant's father was sole tenant of the premises, and had control of the door and of the rest of the house :- Held, that the claimant was not entitled to the franchise. APPEAL from the decision of the Assistant Revising Barrister of the Northern Division of the county of Tyrone, admitting the claim of Patrick Dogherty. (1) Before PORTER, M. E., SIR MICHARL MORRIS, O. J.„ and Fitz GIBBOX and BARRY, L.JJ. Vor.. XX. 202 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L.13.1. Appeal. The material portion of the case stated by the Revising Bar 1886. rister was as follows :- " Robert Clarke, being properly qualified in that behalf, obÂjected to the name...