Higginson v O'Flaherty

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 18 January 1854
• Date: 18 January 1854
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench

HIGGINSON

and

O'FLAHERTY.

Brook v. MontagueENR Cro. Jac. 90.

Weston v. DobnietENR Cro. Jac. 432.

Buckley v. WoodENR 4 Coke, 14 b.

Cutler v. Dixon Ibid, 14 b.

Astley v. Younge 2 Bur. 807.

Lakek v. King 1 W. Saund. 131.

Robinson v. May 2 Sm. R. 3.

Martin v. StrongENR 5 Ad. & El. 535.

Hodgson v. ScarlettENR 1 B. & Ald. 245.

Hearne v. StowellENR 12 Ad. & El. 727.

Butt v. Jackson 10 Ir. Law Rep. 120.

Gibbs v. PikeUNK 1 Dowl., N. S., 416.

COMMON LAW REPORTS. 125 of the tenant against the claim of the mortgagor; and for that M. T. 1854. s Benc h purpose, the bringing the action by the mortgagee will be at least Queen' as strong as the mere claim by any notice, as it will equally evince WYSL v. the determination of the mortgagee's will to allow the mortgagor MYERS. to continue in possession, and thus afford the tenant a defence against any action which the mortgagor might hereafter bring. The case of Ognell v. Shaw also seems to me to support the answer I have already given to the case of Wilton v. Dunne, by showing that mere liability, without payment to the mortgaÂÂgor, will not be a defence to the action of the mortgagee, although such liability has in the course of the argument in the present case been strongly urged as a ground of defence. On these grounds, therefore, I am of opinion that the verdict for the plaintiff should stand. Order absolute. HIGGINSON v. O'FLAHERTY. ORAL SLANDER.-The declaration contained two counts. The first, after setting out the ordinary inducement, stated that the plaintiff had been and still was Deputy Registrar of the Consistorial Court of Down and Connor, and as such that it was his duty to take down the depositions of witnesses examined on oath in causes pending in said Court ; and that he was bound by an oath, on his entering into such office, to examine the witnesses on oath, without bias or partiality in respect of one party more than another; and that he was subject to pains and penalties, and the loss of his said office, if he did not act with impartiality in the taking down such evidence. That on, &c., a certain cause had been and then was deÂÂpending in said Consistorial Court of Down and Connor, wherein one J. M. was promovant, and R. B. was impugnant ; and a numÂÂber of witnesses, to wit, &c., were examined and cross-examined on oath by the plaintiff as such Deputy Registrar, he having competent H. T. 1854. Jan, 18. A proctor, acting for an impugnant in an EcclesiasÂÂtical Court, is not privileged in making obÂÂservations reÂÂflecting on the integrity of an officer of the Court, if such observations be not relevant to the cause. 126 COMMON LAW REPORTS. H. T. 1854. authority as such to examine such witnesses on oath; that the Queen's Bench defendant then and there acted as proctor on behalf of the said HIGGINSON impugnant mpugnant ; that one M. A. C. was examined, and the depositions O'FLAHERTY. were taken down with impartiality by the plaintiff ; yet the defendant, at the said Court, in the presence of E. G. K., G. S. and others, in a certain discourse, of and concerning the...