Henry Farran Darley, Plaintiff in Error; v The Queen At The Relation of Robert Kinahan

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHouse of Lords (Ireland)
Judgment Date01 Jul 1846

H. of Lords.

HENRY FARRAN DARLEY, Plaintiff in Error;
and
THE QUEEN At the relation of ROBERT KINAHAN.

Rex v. The Mayor of HertfordENR 1 Ld. Raym. 426.

Rex v. GregoryENR 4 T. R. 241. n.

Rex v. WilliamsENR 1 Burr. 402.

Rex v. StaceyENR 3 T. R. 2.

Rex v. TrevenonENR 2 B. & Al. 339, 479.

Anonymous 1 Barn. 279.

Rex v. GoudgeENR 2 Str. 1213.

Rex v. BinghamENR 2 East. 308.

Rex v. HighmoreENR 1 Dow. & Ry. 438; S. C. 5 B. & Al. 771.

Rex v. FranchardENR 2 Str. 1169.

Rex v. HaltonENR 1 Str. 621.

Rex v. Hall 1 B. & Cr. 123.

DaubeneyENR 2 Str. 1196.

Rex v. SheppardENR 4 T. R. 381.

Rex v. The Duke of BedfordENR 1 Burr. 242.

Rex v. BadcockENR 6 East, 359.

Rex v. Nicholson Str. 299.

Rex v. BeedleENR 3 Ad. & E. 467, n.

Rex v. HarleyENR 3 Ad. & E. 463, n.

Rex v. RamsdenENR 3 Ad. & E. 456.

In re The Aston UnionENR 6 Ad. & E. 785.

Bedford LevelENR 5 East, 356.

Justices of Herefordshire 1 Chit. 700.

484 CASES AT LAW. 1845. H. of Lords. In tbt VoitOt of 3,orioS. HENRY FARRAN DARLEY, Plaintiff in Error; v. THE QUEEN At the relation of ROBERT KINAHAN. (In Error from the Exchequer Chamber and Court of Queen's Bench.) An informa- AN information in the nature of a quo warranto was, by the leave of tiou in the na- the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, filed by the defendant in tare of a quo warranto, will error, against the plaintiff, stating that the plaintiff in error had from lie for usurp ing any office, the 22nd of June 1839, used and exercised, and continued up to the whether creat- time of filing the said information, to use and exercise the office of ed by charter alone, or by treasurer of the public money of the county of the city of Dublin, the Crown, • without any legal warrant, royal grant, or lawful authority what- with the eon- sent of Par- soever ; and it was prayed by the said information, that due process liament, p- law i h issue i the said vided the ro e office at aw mgt ssue aganst te sa plaintiff in error to , make him be of a public answer and show by what warrant or authority he claimed to use the nature and a substantive of- said office. fine, not mere- To this information, the plaintiff in error pleaded several pleas. ly the function or employment The question which was argued and decided by the House of Lords, of a deputy or arose on the sixth and seventh pleas, which averred, that the said servant, held at the will and office was not a corporate office within, or belonging to, the corporation pleasure of others. of the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, Commons, and citizens of the city of The office Dublin, or any other corporation within the said county of the city of treasurer of of Dublin, or elsewhere, or at all, or an office concerned in, or the public mo nies of the connected with, the administration of justice, or touching or concern county of the city of Dublin, ing the election or return of the knights, citizens, or burgesses, to is an office for serve for the Commons in Parliament, for the said county of the which an in formation in city of Dublin, or any other county, city, town, or borough ; or an the nature of office for which our said Lady the Queen will, or ought to, sue, vex, a quo warranto will lie. or harrass this defendant in manner aforesaid. To these pleas, the plaintiff in error demurred, raising the question, whether an inforÂÂmation in the nature of a quo warranto can be legally brought, for intrusion into the said office of treasurer of the public monies of the CASES AT LAW. 485 county of the city of Dublin.* The Court of Exchequer Chamber 1846. H. of Lords. in Ireland were unanimously of opinion, that the information did lie, and this Writ of Error was brought to reverse that judgment. DARLEY V. Other questions were argued before the Queen's Bench and THE QUEEN. Exchequer Chamber in Ireland, and were raised for discussion in the House of Lords ; but their Lordships directed the foregoing question alone to be argued before the Judges. The following Judges attended the hearing of the case :- Tyndal, C. J., Patteson, J., Williams, J., Coleridge, J., Coltman, J., Maule, J., Wightman, J., Cresswell, J., Parke, B., Alderson, B., and Platt, B. Sergeant Manning and J. Henderson, for the plaintiff in error. * Previously to the 33 G. 2, c. 13, treasurers of the public money in Ireland appear to have been elected, or appointed, by the Justices of the Peace of the respective counties and counties of cities, and such authority to elect, and the mode of election, were derived from usage, and not from any legislative provision. A statute was passed in the last mentioned year (33 G. 2, c. 13), which, after reciting " That doubts had arisen concerning the manner of appointment of treaÂÂsurers of counties," provided, that wherever a vacancy should happen by death, misbehaviour, or resignation of a county treasurer, the Justices of the county in which such vacancy should occur, should appoint a proper person to be treasurer, and that the person so appointed should enter into a recognizance for 1000, and procure two sufficient sureties, who should bind themselves in 500 each for his good conduct in the office, and his justly accounting for all public monies received by him. The provisions of this statute were varied by the 13 & 14 G. 3, c. 18, which confined the right of voting on the election of treasurers, to Justices of the Peace having a freehold estate of 100 a-year, and directed that seven Justices so qualified should be present at every election. This latter Act also provided, that if any treasurer should be convicted, either by indictment or presentment, of any of the several frauds, neglects, or offences particularly specified in the Act, he should be fined and dismissed from his office, and be rendered incapable of being again appointed treasurer for any county in Ireland. It also raised the amount of security from 1000 to 10,000 for the treasurer, 500 to 8000 for each security, and provided for enquiry by the Court of Queen's Bench and Justices of Assize, into the continuing solvency of the sureties, with a power of dismissal by the Judge for default of procuring other sureties. The first statute which expressly refers to the election of the treasurer of public money of the county of the city of Dublin...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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