Holland v Hagan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 November 1894
• Date: 12 November 1894
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

Holland

and

Hagan (1).

Appeal.

DETERMINED BY

THE QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER DIVISIONS

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1895.

Parliament — Registration of voters — Inhabitant occupier — Compulsory absence during part of qualifying period — Imprisonment during portion of a day after conviction — Legal day — De minimis non curat lex.

A voter was arrested and imprisoned, and on being brought before the magistrate next day was sentenced to imprisonment for fourteen days, with the option of a fine. He paid the fine, and was discharged. The period of his detention did not extend over the entire of any one day:—

Held, that as the law will not take notice of fractions of a day the voter was not to be deprived of the franchise by reason of his compulsory absence for portions only of two successive days.

Appeal by the objector against the decision of Mr. Wylie, Q.C., one of the Revising Barristers for the borough of Londonderry. The facts appear from the case stated, which was as follows:—

“James Hagan appeared on the list of voters for the North Division of the borough of Londonderry as an inhabitant occupier of a house and yard, 2, Donegall-street, in said borough, and was duly objected to.

The said James Hagan proved his right to have his name retained on said list of voters in respect of the qualification therein stated, unless disqualified by the following circumstances:—The said James Hagan was arrested by the police for drunkenness at 7 o'clock, p.m., on Friday, and detained in the police cell during Friday night. He was brought before a magistrate on said charge on Saturday morning following, and was fined 12s. 6d., with the alternative of imprisonment, in default of payment, for fourteen days. He paid the fine, and was discharged at 6 p.m. on same day.

It was contended by the objector that the inhabitancy of the

said James Hagan was broken during the qualifying period by detention as aforesaid in the police barrack all night, and during portion of the next day after conviction.

I was of opinion that the case was not distinguishable from Sally v. Burnett (1), and retained the name. If I was wrong the name of the said James Hagan (No. 666 on the said list) should be expunged from the said list.”

Ross, Q.C., for the appellant.

Healy, for the respondent.

Sir Peter O'Brien, C. J.:—

We are all of opinion that the...