Harte M'Cullagh

CourtExchequer (Ireland)
Judgment Date25 November 1871
Date25 November 1871




Reddy v. Dalton 10 Ir. Jur. N. S. 397.

Anon. 1 Leg. Rep. 36.

Jackson v. ChardENR 2 Dow. 469.

Brooks v. FarlarENR 5 Dow. 361.

Shirer v. WalkerUNK 2 M. & G. 917.

Practice — Affidavit —

VoL. V.] COMMON LAW SERIES. 537 pally arose from an oversight of counsel, and not otherwise, Q. Bench. that the oversight was not discovered until the issues came to 1871. be settled on the 17th of November, 1871, and that immediate BRAT. Towx- steps were then taken to rectify the omission. No answer was re- SHIP Com. turned by the Plaintiffs' attorney to this. LA CET. Armstrong, Serf& (with him 1111Laughlin), now moved for liberty to file the proposed additional defence, and cited Reddy v. DalÂton (1). Exchequer. 1871. E. Gibson, contra, contended that the motion ought not to be granted-first, because notice of trial had been served, and next upon the ground that there was no affidavit by the Defendant him self as to the truth of the proposed defence. WHITESIDE, C. J. :- This proposed defence is plainly a substantial and bond fide one, and we think the Defendant ought to be allowed to plead it ; but it is not to be supposed that we shall in all cases go to the extreme length we have gone to upon this occasion. The motion will, thereÂfore, be granted, the Plaintiffs' costs to be costs in the cause. Attorney for the Plaintiffs : Octavius O'Brien. Attorney for the Defendant : John Colman. HARTE v. MTULLAGH. Practice-Affidavit-140th Gen. Order, 1854. An affidavit made in an action by one of the parties thereto, who is deÂscribed in the affidavit as Plaintiff or Defendant, need not contain the addition or residence of the deponent. MOTION that the action be remitted for trial to the Civil Bill Court, upon an affidavit which had been made by the Defendant. The affidavit described the deponent as "the Defendant in this action," but did not contain his addition or residence. (1) 10 Ir. Jur. N. S. 397. VOL. V, 2 N Nov. 25. THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. P. O'Brien, for the Plaintiff, objected to the affidavit being used, as not complying with the provisions of the 140th General Order, 1854, and cited Anon. (1). Colquhoun, for the Defendant : the 140th General Order has no application to this case. It has been held in several cases in England that 1 Reg. Gen. H. T., W. 4, see. 5, which is in all respects in pari...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Beakey v Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 2 October 2018
    ...... 11. Coming then to the Irish authorities, my attention has been drawn to the decision in Harte v McCullagh IR 5 CL 537 . That is authority for the proposition that an affidavit made in an action by one of the parties who was described in the ......
  • Kearney v Bank of Scotland Plc
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 23 February 2015
    ...Court was satisfied those objections were unfounded. Haslope v Thorne [1813] 1 M & S 102, Blackwell v. England [1857] 8 EL & BL 540 & Harte v McCullagh IR 5 CL 537 considered 1 1. There is before the court this morning a motion which has been brought by Mr. Kearney in which he seeks an exte......

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