Edge v Wandesford

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 16 January 1846
• Date: 16 January 1846
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench.

EDGE

and

WANDESFORD.

Tinkler v. RolandUNK 6 Nev. & M. 848; S. C. A. & E. 868

Powell v. sonnett 1 Dow. & C. 56.

Dewar v. Purday 3 A. & E. 166.

Norris v. DaniellENR 4 M. & Sc. 383.

Gisborne v. HartENR 5 M. & W. 50.

Morris v. DavesENR 3 C. & P. 427.

Cooke v. CaldecottENR 4 C. & P. 315.

Green v. Lord Listowell 2 Ir. Law. Rep. 384.

or the obtaining of the presentment, until after the Summer Assizes of 1845, and until the time for traversing the presentment had expired. That great inconvenience would be caused by the stopping up of this road. That the presentment was null and void, inasmuch as the appliÂÂcation was defective by reason of the omission therefrom of the riding of the county in which the said road was situate, and of the section of the Act of Parliament under which said application was _made ;. and also of the description of Michael Phoran, and of his not being a cess-payer of the said barony or county, and inasmuch as he was the person who became contractor for the stopping up of such road ; and also, because his description, and that of his securities, was omitted from the tender ; and also, because Nicholas Mandeville, the substanÂÂtial applicant for such presentment, was the chairman of the sessions; and that the section of the Act under which such presentment was made, could not, by reason of the omission from such application, have been legally inserted in the presentment. John Pennefather, with whom was Berwick, moved to make absoÂÂlute the order. Hartley, contra. Per Curiam. The Court only look to the presentment itself, and will not go behind it. We do not grant a certiorari to review such a proceeding. Allow the cause without costs. EDGE v. WANDESFORD. Jan. 16. Tins case was tried before Richards, B., at the Summer Assizes of A Judge can- verdict rtdrieect receive upon 1845 for the Queen's County. The declaration contained fifteen some issues counts; fourteen being in case for flooding a mine, and the fifteenth and discharge was a count in trover. After the learned Judge had charged the a jury on the menee eure,eibfe jury, they stated that they could not agree to find any verdict on the trheeei first fourteen counts, but they were agreed to find upon the fifteenth; material. which verdict the learned Judge received, and Counsel for the defendant objected to the reception of this partial verdict. His 162 CASES AT LAW. H. T. 1846. Lordship, however, received this verdict, and discharged the jury...