Lessee Bowen v Cleary

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Exchequer of Pleas (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 22 April 1847
• Date: 22 April 1847

Exch. of Pleas.

Lessee BOWEN

and

CLEARY.

Browne v. Motherwell 1 Cr. & D. C. C. 471.

Phillips v. Hughes 2 Cr. & D. C. C. 238.

Davis v. Jackson Ir. Cir. Rep. 384.

Daniel v. Bingham 7 Ir. Law Rep. 29.

Coleby v. Norris 1 Wilson, 91.

Whiskard v. Wilder 1 Bur. 330.

Hazlewood v. TatchardENR 3 T. R. 351.

CASES AT LAW. 449 E. T. 1847. Exch. of Pleas. Lessee BOWEN v. CLEARY. Ix this case, which was an ejectment for non-payment of rent, it appeared at the trial, that the notice which was indorsed upon the summons in ejectment, pursuant to the statute 9 & 10 Vic. c. 3, 8.1, was in the following terms :-" The lessors of the Rlaintiff claim "84. 10s. being for over one year's rent, up to 'ale 1st day of "November 1846. The times at which the same accrued due being "as follows, that is to say :-one year's rent up to November 1846, "61. 5s. ; balance of old arrear 23. 6s. The jury hav ing found for the plaintiff F. Meagher, pursuant to leave reserved at the trial, moved to enter a nonsuit, on the ground of the insufficiency of the above notice. The defect in this notice entitles the defendant to a nonsuit. Previous to the passing of the 9 & 10 Vic. c. 3, there was an Act in force (6 & 7 W. 4, c. 75,) requiring in certain cases particulars to be furnished, stating the times at which the rent accrued due in respect of which a distress is made. The occurrence of the word " times," in the plural number in each statute, shows that the object which the Legislature had in view in each case is the same ; and that the interpretation received by the 6th section of the former statute, 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 75, ought to be extended to the Act now under consideration. But the provisions of the 6th section of the preÂÂvious Act are mandatory : Browne v. Motherwell (a) ; Srnallman d. Phillips v. Hughes (b); Davis v. Jackson (C).-[BENNEFATHER, B. Those were cases of proceedings by civil bill.]-Davis v. Jackson shows that the particulars as stated in the notice in the present case are not a compliance with the statute, inasmuch as the times at which each portion of the rent became due are not stated. The CHIEF BARON in that case says :-" If you proceed for one gale, the "time, and if for more than one, the times, at which each accrued " must be stated ; otherwise the party would not know what gales "were demanded. This merely says, ' rent and arrears of rent," "without specifying when they t ccrued. I am of opinion that the " Act is mandatory, and that this particular is...