Crowe v Tipperary County Council

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 06 February 1928
• Date: 06 February 1928
• Court: Supreme Court (Irish Free State)

Crowe v. Tipperary Co. Council

THOMAS CROWE

Applicant

and

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF TIPPERARY (SOUTH RIDING),Respondents (1)

Supreme Court.

Malicious injury - Burning of hay - Claim for compensation - Proof of malice - Evidence inconclusive - Absence of direct evidence of the origin of the damage - Refusal of compensation by Circuit Court Judge - Appeal - Jurisdiction of appellate Court.

An applicant claimed compensation under the Criminal Injuries (Ir.) Acts for the burning of a rick of hay. The Circuit Court Judge held that, on the evidence, the burning might either have been accidental or malicious, and accordingly, as the applicant had not proved that the burning was malicious he was not entitled to compensation. The applicant appealed to the Commissioners appointed to hear appeals from the Circuit Court, and they reversed the decision of the Circuit Court Judge, and awarded compensation. The respondents appealed from that decision to the Supreme Court.

Held by the Supreme Court that, taking the law as laid down inArtificial Coal Co. and Hamon v. Minister for Finance, ante, p. 238, the appellate tribunal could not, in a case such as this, where there was no direct evidence of the origin of the damage, reverse the decision of the Circuit Court Judge, dismissing the application, unless satisfied that the applicant had, by the evidence given on his behalf, discharged the burden upon him of excluding every reasonable hypothesis which afforded an innocent explanation of the injury consistent with the facts, and thereby established as a necessary affirmative inference which the Judge should, as a jury, have drawn—that the burning was a wrongful act, done intentionally, without just cause or excuse.

Accordingly, as the Supreme Court found, as regards the burning of the hay, a state of facts proved equally consistent with several innocent explanations (e.g., accident or negligence) as with a hypothesis of a crime having been committed, the Court held that the Circuit Court Judge had rightly decided that the applicant had not proved his case, and accordingly the order made by the Commissioners must be discharged.

Malicious Injury Appeal.

The applicant, Thomas Crowe, claimed compensation under the Criminal Injuries (Ir.) Acts for the malicious burning of a rick of hay, his property. The Circuit Court Judge, having heard the evidence, dismissed the application, holding that the applicant had not discharged the onus that lay on him of proving that the burning was malicious. From this decision the applicant appealed to the Commissioners appointed under the Circuit Court Appeals Act, 1927 (No. 10 of 1927), to hear appeals from the Circuit Court which were pending at the date of the passing of the Act. The appeal was heard by two of these Commissioners (Mr. Commissioner Lynch K.C. and Mr. Commissioner FitzGerald K.C.), who reversed the decision of...