Joel v Peard

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 06 May 1847
• Date: 06 May 1847
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench.

JOEL

and

PEARD.

Donlan v. BrettENR 10 B. & C. 117.

Day v. Picton Ibid, 120.

Russell v. Atkinson 2 N. & M. 667.

Lewis v. AshtonENR 1 M. & W. 493.

Robinson v. Whitehead 6 D. P. C. 292; S. C. 1 N. & P. 219.

Ballantine v. Taylor 1 Nev. & P. 221.

Summers v. Grosvenor 2 D. P. C. 224.

Wilson v. Broughton 2 Dow. P. C. 631.

Reynolds v. Mathews 7 D. P. C. 580.

Turpin v. Cunningham 1 J. & Sy. 145.

Edwards v. JonesENR 2 M. & W. 416.

Amor v. BlofieldENR 2 M. & Sc. 156.

James v. Askew 3 N. & P. 498.

Bennett v. Burton 9 D. P. C. 492.

Bates v. Pilling 2 D. P. C. 367.

Cash v. Trevor 3 Ir. Law Rep. 433.

550 CASES AT LAW. E. T. 1847. from the report of the ease that it was by the same plaintiff. Mr. Queen'sBench. Smythe states that it was. Notice of the declaration was given, but STORY an attested copy of it was not served until the following Term. V. The Court held that the filing of the declaration in Vacation, non HASSARD. sedente Curia, was irregular, and set it aside ; but neither of these cases govern the one before us. The motion therefore must be refused, but without costs. JOEL v. PEARD. May 6. An arrest IN this case Macdonogh, on behalf of the defendant, moved that he without hold ing a defend- be entitled to the costs of this suit, to be taxed pursuant to the ant to special statute 43 G. 3, c. 46, s. 3 ; the plaintiff having, on the 8th of bail, though the arrest be October last, arrested the defendant for a sum considerably exceed-without proba- in g the amount of the verdict obtained in this cause. ble cause, does not entitle the defendant to his costs under The affidavit of the defendant, on which this motion was 43 G. 3, c. 46. grounded, stated that he had been arrested on the 8th of October Qmre -If a on a fiat obtained by the plaintiff, upon an affidavit made by him, party be ar rested and by which the plaintiff swore that the defendant was justly and fairly kept in gaol, not being able to procure bail) on the trial obtained a verdict for the sum of £624. 9s. 5d., and no or if he lodge the sum claim- more, about £150 of which was for bills not due at the time of ea) is be in the arrest ; that the defendant was discharged from custody, having such case en titled to his been detained therein from the 8th to the 24th of October, on costs, the ar- entering a common appearance ; and the costs of the motion for his rest being without proba- discharge were ordered be paid by the plaintiff; that at the trial, ble cause ? plaintiff's Counsel admitted that about £500 of the claim made by the plaintiff was for securities passed by the defendant, while a minor and ward of the Court of Chancery ; and that the documenÂtary evidence at the trial also showed that the plaintiff was perfectly cognizant of that fact at the time of his dealings with the defendant. The...