Gormley v Buchanan

Judgment Date01 January 1894
Date01 January 1894
CourtKing's Bench Division (Ireland)



Vol. IL] ft. B. A EX. DIVISIONS. 299 GORMLEY v. BUCHANAN (1). Appeal. 1893. Parliamentary franchiseRated occupierOccupation as tenantFather of Nov. 13. claimant dying intestateClaimant accepted as tenantConsent of other ^e0- ' ^ next-of-kinJoint or sole occupation. The claimant's father had been tenant from year to year of the qualifying premises. He died intestate, leaving his widow and one son (the claimant) sole next-of-kin. The widow and the claimant continued to live on the farm during the qualifying period. The claimant had been accepted by the landlord as tenant. The Revising Barrister, on these facts being proved, allowed the case to stand for the attendance of the widow to prove that she had released her claim on the farm. She did not attend, and the Revising Barrister disallowed the vote, on the ground that the claimant was not in sole occupation : Held (diss. FitzGibbon, L.J.), that there was evidence to support the finding of the Revising Barrister, and that his decision should be affirmed. Appeal by Peter Gormley against the decision of Mr. Cuming, one of the Revising Barristers for the North Tyrone Division, refusing to admit the appellant to the franchise. The facts appear from the case stated, which was as follows: " At a Court held in the said Division of the said county, by me, one of the Revising Barristers appointed to revise the lists of voters for the said Division and county, the name of the appellant, Peter Gormley, appeared on the Supplemental List of rated occupiers for the Drumquin Polling District of the suid Division, and was duly objected to. " It-was proved that his father died two years ago, leaving this son and a widow. The appellant was accepted as tenant on the father's death. The valuation of the farm is £13 15s. There was no evidence given or offered that the father had made a will. The widow lives on these premises since the death with the appellant. The father was tenant from year to year. (1) Before Sir Peteu O'Brten, C.J., Poktfr, M.R., Palles, C.B., and FitzGibbon and Bahhy, I..IJ. 1 A2 SCO THE IRISH REPORTS. [1894. Ross, Q.C, for the respondent: There was evidence that the widow of the deceased tenant had some interest in the farm, and that she was there in occupation to sustain it.' The onus lay on the claimant to prove that he was in sole occupation as tenant; to discharge this onus he should have proved that his mother had by agreement waived all claim to the tenancy of his father. It lay on him to prove her consent to the landlord taking him as tenant. In Fowler v. Hanrahnn (I) the Revising Barrister found that all the next-of-kin consented. In Leonard v. M'Cann (2) all the next-of-kin were out of possession. (1) Lawson, Notes, 1888-89, p. 10. (3) Lawson, Notes, 1891-92, p. 12. (2) Ibid, p. 12. (-) Ibid. 1890-91, p. 13. ^/ys*'" " ^a8e B^an ^8 a ^journed by me for attendance of widow, to prove -- that she had released or abandoned her claim on or interest in the Oohvxkt r. farm. She does not attend. Buchahas. j B{.ruck ouf. uj8 name holding that he was not the sole ocoupier or entitled to a vote. " If I am wrong in this, his name is to be restored to the said list as a voter, otherwise to remain out." Healy, and M. J. Kenny, for the appellant : The claimant was aocepted by the landlord as the tenant; he has been treated as tenant, he was in occupation during the. qualifying period as tenant, no one else has set up any claim to the holding or the tenancy: Fowler v. Hanrahan (1), Leonard v. APCann (2), Torish v. Sproule (3), Kirkpatrick v. Murphy (4). In all former cases where one of the next-of-kin of a deceased tenant, accepted as tenant by the landlord, was held not entitled to a vote, the absence of consent by the other occupying next-of-kin was affirmatively proved. It lies on the objector to show that the other next-of-kin did not consent; that onus has not been satisfied here, the claimant's mother is not tenant: the claimant is the only person iu occupation as tenant; it is a rated occupier's claim, and the claimant has paid the rates. Vol. II] Q. B. & EX. DIVISIONS. 301 The appeal, which had been argued on November 13, 1893, Appeal. was, by direction of the Court, re-argued on December 1, 1893. 1893-On the re-argument, counsel for the appellants said that the appeal QR*LEr was not sustainable, while counsel for the respondents said that Buchana*. he thought the Revising Barrister's decision was wrong. Cur. adv. vult. sir peter o'brien, c.j.: Dec 13. A man named Gormley held a farm, as tenant from year to year. He died about two years ago. There was no evidence that he made a will, and the case has been argued on the basis that he died intestate. His son, who olaims to be entitled to the franchise, was accepted as tenant by the landlord. The widow, the mother of the claimant, resided on the premises. When so much was proved before the Revising Barrister the case was adjourned for the attendance of the widow to prove that she had released or abandoned her claim to her interest in the farm. She did not attend. The Revising Barrister disallowed the vote, holding that the claimant was not the sole occupier. I think that there was evidence to sustain his finding, and that his decision must therefore be affirmed. The case seems to me to be substantially governed by Smyth v. Chambers (1), and Simpson v. Hanrahan (2), both of which I consider rightly decided. If a man dies intestate leaving several next-of-kin, and one son is accepted as tenant with the consent of the other next-of-kin, if they consent that the tenancy is to be in the son so accepted alone, and that consent be established in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Riddall v Mullan
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 18 December 1902
    ...2 I. R. 273. Glenn v. BrennanDLTR 2 Lawson, 10; 29 I. L. T. R. 79. Golloghly v. CannonDLTR 33 I. L. T. R. 88. Gormley v. BuchananIR [1894] 2 I. R. 299. Gormley's CaseIR [1894] 2 I. R. 299. Hayes v. CorcoranUNK 8 L. R. Ir. 75. Holland v. ChambersUNK 32 L. R. IR. 156. Holland v. ChambersIR [1......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT