M'Bride, Appellant; M'Govern, Respondent

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: K. B. Div.
• Judgment Date: 18 May 1905
• Court: King's Bench Division (Ireland)
• Date: 18 May 1905

M'Bride

Appellant

and

M'Govern.

Respondent (1).

K. B. Div.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1906.

Cart — Name and residence of owner painted in Irish letters — Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 92), section 12, sub-section 1.

Held, that, on the true construction of the sub-section, the “legible letters” therein referred to are such legible English letters as are now in use, and that the provision is not complied with by painting the name and residence of the owner on the cart in Irish letters.

Case Stated under 20 & 21 Vict. C. 43.

The following are the material facts as set out in the case:—

At a Petty Sessions held for the Petty Sessions District of Dunfanaghy, county Donegal, the appellant, Neil M'Bride, was charged on summons, on the complaint of the respondent, Hugh M'Govern, head-constable, Royal Irish Constabulary, with having had on the public road at Kill, in the said district, a cart for the conveyance of goods, of which cart he was the owner, without having his name and residence painted thereon in legible letters as required by 14 & 15 Vict. c. 92, s. 12. At the hearing of the complaint it was proved, on the part of the complainant, that the appellant had on the public road at Kill, on the day charged in the summons, a cart for the conveyance of goods, of which cart the appellant was owner, and that the name and residence of the appellant were not painted on the cart in letters legible to complainant (i.e. in English characters), but were painted in letters

believed to be Irish (1). It was admitted that the letters were of the proper dimensions, and that they might be legible to people who could read the Irish language.

It was proved, on the part of the appellant, that the name and residence of appellant were correctly painted on his cart in legible letters and characters of the Irish language, and that in the district in question the Irish language was spoken by three-fourths of the population, of whom a large proportion spoke both Irish and English, while a considerable number spoke Irish exclusively; and that in several of the National schools of the district the reading and writing, as well as speaking, of the Irish language were taught as an extra subject, and paid for by the Commissioners of National Education after examinations conducted in Irish by the Commissioners' inspectors. That there were several branches of the Gaelic League established in the district, in connexion with which the reading and writing and speaking of the Irish language were also taught, and that in some instances private tuition in the reading, writing, and speaking of the Irish language was also given; that letters and packets and parcels addressed exclusively in Irish were carried and delivered by the post in the district; that literary and educational works in the Irish language were read in the district; and that several newspapers containing printed matter in the Irish language circulated in the district, some of such matter being contributed from the said district.

The Justices being of opinion that the name and residence of the appellant, being painted in Irish letters, were not in legible letters according to the Act, convicted the appellant; but at his request stated the present case, the question being whether the Justices were correct in point of law in their determination.

(1) The name and residence were painted on the cart in the following characters:—

The corresponding letters in the English character would be:—

NIALL MAC GIOLLA BHRIGHDE,

FIODH-MOR.

P. S. Walsh (with him Healy, K.C., and Pearse), for the appellant:—

The name and residence of the owner were painted on the cart in legible letters. “Legible” is defined in Webster's Dictionary as “capable of being read; consisting of letters or figures that may be distinguished by the eye.” We submit, first, that the meaning of the word “legible” in sub-sect. 1 of section 12 of 14 & 15 Vict. c. 92, is that the letters must not be obliterated or defaced. This construction is borne out by the expression in subsect. 5, “remaining legible.” So in 16 & 17 Vict. c. 112, s. 18, the words “visible and legible” are used in contradistinction to “obliterated and defaced.” The painting, therefore, of the name in Irish letters is, we submit, sufficient, so long as the letters are not obliterated or defaced. The object of the sub-section is the identification of the owner of the carts, and this is sufficiently secured by the name being in Irish characters, especially in a district, such as this, where Irish is largely spoken, and publications in the Irish character are widely circulated. Persons not able to read Irish could, by inquiring, readily ascertain the owner of the cart. There is no statute prohibiting the use of Irish letters.[He referred to 5 Edw. 4, c. 3 (Ir.); 17 & 18 Car. 2, c. 2 (Ir.), s. 234; 11 Geo. 2, c. 6 (Ir.).]

Secondly, even assuming that the name and residence must be in English letters, the letters used here are not so exclusively Irish as not to be also English. The only letter which materially differs from the corresponding English character is the letter ‘g’ and in point of fact, although it differs from the present English form, it corresponds with the old English form of that letter.

Cecil Atkinson, for the respondent:—

The statute in question was passed by an English-speaking Parliament, legislating in the English language, and the presumption is that it was intended that the name and residence should be in the English language and in English characters. The Irish language has never been officially recognized in this country. Words in an...