Hynes v Duke of Devonshire

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHigh Court (Irish Free State)
Judgment Date01 January 1928
Date01 January 1928
Hynes v. Duke of Devonshire.
HYNES
and
DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE (1)

High Court.

Landlord and tenant - Land purchase - Sporting rights vested in landlord - Whether enforceable by landlord after the passing of the Land Act,1923 - Tenanted land - "Appointed day" not fixed - Land Act, 1923 (No. 42 of 1923), sect. 24, sub-sect. 1, sect. 45, sub-sects. 1, 2.

Sporting rights over certain lands, which were reserved exclusively to a landlord by an order of the Land Commission Court made in 1910 fixing the fair rent, did not cease to be enforceable by him upon the passing of the Land Act, 1923, the lands in question being "tenanted lands" within that Act, and the "appointed day" not having been fixed.

Lynam v. Butler, [1925] 2 I.R. 231, applied.

Appeal, by the defendant by way of case stated from the determination of the Justice of the District Court, sitting at Lismore, Co. Waterford.

Cyril P. Hynes, the defendant, appealed from his conviction by the District Justice for shooting game without being duly authorised on certain lands, the complainant being the Duke of Devonshire, the landlord, to whom the sporting rights were reserved by the order fixing the fair rent, dated the 21st January, 1910. The lands were "tenanted lands" within the Land Act, 1923. The defendant claimed that he was duly authorised to shoot over the lands, as he had obtained the written permission of the judicial tenant, a Mr. Neill.

The following is the case stated:—

"This is a case stated by me, the undersigned District Justice, sitting at Lismore, in the County of Waterford, for the opinion of the High Court of Justice in Saorstát Éireann éireann, pursuant to the provisions of an Act to improve the administration of law so far as respects summary proceedings (20 & 21 Vict. c. 43), the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, and the Rules of the District Court made thereunder.

At the District Court held at Lismore, in the County of Waterford, on the 9th day of December, 1926, the complainant charged the defendant in and by a certain complaint that on the 4th day of November, 1926, at Ballynadeige and Islands, in the said district and county, the defendant, not being duly authorised by the complainant, did enter upon said lands at Ballynadeige and Islands aforesaid, the property of the said complainant, there to look for and shoot game, to wit, wild duck, provided with gun and dogs, contrary to the statutes in that behalf. And the complainant and defendant being then present or represented before me, the complaint was duly heard, and upon such hearing I adjudged that the defendant be convicted

of
...

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