J. Hodgens v H. H. Poe

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 23 November 1866
• Date: 23 November 1866
• Court: Exchequer (Ireland)

Echequer.

J. HODGENS

and

H. H. POE.

Prince v. NicholsonENR 5 Taunt. 333.

Rex v. Gourlay 7 B. & Cr. 669.

Rex v. Hood 1 Moo. Cr. C. 281.

Fletcher v. Calthorp B. & S. 223.

Rex v. Bartlett 12 Law Jour., M. C. 127.

Money v. LeachUNK 1 Wm. Bl. 561.

Shaddock v. ClipsonENR 8 East, 328.

Rex v. CooperENR 6 T. R. 509.

In re Tordoft B. & S. 17.

Vanderburgh v. Spooner 1 L. R., Exch. 316.

Hoye v. BushUNK 1 M. & G. 775.

Howson v. BarrosENR 6 T. R. 122.

Boyd v. DurandENR 2 Taunt. 161.

Rex v. HazellENR 13 East, 139.

Butler v. Bianconi 11 Ir. Law Rep. 286.

In re Byrne 11 Ir. Law Rep. 538.

Rex v. Horne Cowp. 672.

Regina v. GalvinIR 16 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 452.

Regina v. PelhamUNK 2 Cox, Cr. C. 17.

Rex v. EldertonENR 6 Mod. 88.

COMMON LAW REPORTS. 383 notice), " undertake by notice to comply therewith." The service H. V. 1867. Exchequer. of the notice requiring the security, and the non-compliance with JACK what it requires, are essential to confer upon the defendant the v. right to make the application. If we should hold that the notice of NOBLE. motion under the 52nd Order may be served before the right to make the motion has arisen, we should determine what would lead to inconvenient results in practice. No hardship can be imposed by a strict compliance with the terms and spirit of the Order. But the relaxed construction of it, for which the defendant contends, would expose suitors to needless expense, by tempting practitioners first to delay giving the notice requiring security for costs, and then to file affidavits in support of a motion, beÂÂfore the time for answering the notice has expired. The costs of these, if the preliminary notice be complied with, must be a useless expense, since they could never be recovered from the opposite party ; who, on his side, may be involved in uncertainty and expense, in reference to a pending motion which he renders useless by a compliance with the preliminary notice. FITZGERALD, HUGHES, and DEASY, BB., concurred. No rule on the motion. J. HODGENS v. H. H. POE.* M. T. 1866. Nov. 22, 23. Tars was an action for assault and false imprisonment, and was A - warrant of committal for tried at the last After-sittings in this Court. At the trial it appeared trial stated "J. P., of that the defendant, being a Justice of the Peace, was present at N.," as com plainant, and "W. K., J. H., and J. S.," as defendants, recited a complaint against the said defendants, and then proceeded, " This is to command you, &c„ to lodge the said , of N., in the gaol of N.," &c. Held, that this warrant was no defence to an action for false imprisonment by J. H. against the Justice who signed the warrant. * Before the Full Court. 384 COMMON LAW REPORTS. divine service at the parish church of Nenagh, when a disturbance took place, caused, it was alleged, by the plaintiff; and the defendant was requested by the churchwardens to interfere ; and the defendant thereupon took the plaintiff into custody, and detained him, to examine into the offence, and to receive the informations of the officiating clergyman and others. These informations having been made, and the plaintiff not having entered into the sureties required by the statute, defendant duly made his warrant, and committed plaintiff to gaol until he should find sureties. At the trial the following warrant was produced : " Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851-14 & 15 Vic., c. 93. " Form E b-Warrant to commit (or detain) for trial. " James Jocelyn Poe, one of the Churchwar- Petty Sessions t Complainan District of dens of the parish of Nenagh, Nenagh. " William King, John Hodgens, and County of Defendants. John Smith, Tipperary. " Whereas a complaint was made, on the 8th of January 1865, " on the oath of two credible witnesses, that the defendants did, "on this day, at Nenagh, in said county, disquiet and disturb a " congregation assembled for public worship in St. Mary's church, "in the town and parish of Nenagh aforesaid." " This is to command you to whom this warrant is addressed " to lodge the said -, of Nenagh, in the gaol of Nenagh, in "said county of Tipperary, there to be imprisoned by the keeper " of the...