M'Lester v Quinn

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 14 January 1860
• Date: 14 January 1860
• Court: Court of Common Pleas (Ireland)

Common Pleas.

M'LESTER

and

QUINN.

Rice v. The Dublin & Wicklow Railway Co.IR 8 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 155.

Sheehan v. Dorman 2 Fox & Sm. 338.

Egan v. Kircaldy 3 Ir. Law Rep. 547.

Foster v. RoundelENR Wil., Wol. & Dav. 58.

Gregory v. Elvidge 2 Cr. & Mee. 336; S. C., 2 Dowl. Pr. Cas. 259.

Hearsey v. PechelENR 5 B. N. C. 466.

Armitage v. GraftonUNK 10 Jur. 377.

The Queen v. Malmsbury 9 Dowl. Prac. Cas. 359.

Tenant v. BrownENR 5 B. & C. 208.

Sheehy v. Dormer 2 F. & Sm. 238.

Egan v. Kircaldy 3 Ir. Law Rep. 542.

Rice v. Dublin and Wicklow Railway Company Ubi sup.

Tenant v. Brown 5 Bar. & Cr. 208.

Hearsey v. PechellENR 5 B. N. C. 466.

358 COMMON LAW REPORTS. produce it. If this had been the only ground for the order for the new trial, we probably would have been of opinion that the verdict was not against the weight of evidence ; and that if the plaintiffs wished to rely upon the registry, they should look for and produce the original lease itself; indorsed by the Clerk of the Peace, which would show whether Walsh really registered out of the preÂÂmises now in dispute, or, as suggested by the defendant, out of other premises. Be this as it may, we grant a new trial, upon the other grounds which I have stated : and I have referred to these latter points in order that, at the new trial, the parties may be aware of the views we take of the entire case. On the question of costs, we are of opinion that the costs of the last trial should be part of deÂÂfendant's costs in the cause, and that there should be no costs of the new trial motion. Rule accordingly. M'LESTER v. QUINN. Jan. 14. In a personal action, brought to recover penÂÂalties under the Corrupt PracÂÂtices PrevenÂÂtion Act (17 and 18 Vic., c. 102), the Court will order the plainÂÂtiff to give security for costs, where it is sworn, and not conÂÂtradicted, that the plaintiff is a pauper, that he has been put forward by third parties for an ulterior purpose, and that the de. fendant has a good and subÂÂstantial defence on the merits. THIS was an application to compel the plaintiff to give security for costs. The defendant's affidavit, upon which the motion was foundÂÂed, stated that the present action was brought against him to recover penalties, on the grounds of bribery, treating, and undue influence, alleged to have been committed at an election for the return of a Member of Parliament for the Borough of Newry, in May 1859, when the defendant was returned as a burgess to serve in ParÂÂliament for that Borough. The affidavit proceeded thus-" And " deponent saith, that he has a good and substantial defence to this " action, on the merits, and has not the slightest doubt of obtaining a " verdict therein. For this deponent saith that he did not directly " or indirectly give or offer or promise any money or valuable conÂÂ" sideration to any person, in order to induce such person to vote " or refrain from voting, or to do any other act declared to be bribery, "treating, or undue influence, by the statute in that behalf." It COMMON LAW REPORTS. 359 further stated the defendant's belief that the plaintiff was a very H. T. 1860. eas poor man, and wholly unable to pay the costs which the defendant CommonPl. 1114LESTER must incur in defending the action ; that three other actions v. QUINN. Macdonogh, in support of the application. The fact of the plaintiff being put forward for a purpose altoÂÂgether different from that for which the action is ostensibly brought is sufficient to carry this motion ; but besides that, the plaintiff is admittedly a pauper.-[CHRISTIAN,'J., referred to Rice v. The Dublin 4 Wicklow Railway Co. (a); Sheehan v. Dorman (b).-. MONAHAN, C. J., referred to Egan v. Kircaldy (c).]-The authorities referred to establish the Common Law power of the Court in such cases ; which is in addition to the extraordinary powers conferred by section 24 of the Corrupt Practices PrevenÂÂtion Act.-[KEOGH, J. It may be a question whether or not the fact of bringing this action for the avowed purpose of obtaining inforÂÂmation, there being a petition at present pending before the House of Commons in reference to the same facts, would not be regarded as a breach of privilege.] (a) 8 Ir. Corn. Law Rep. 155. (b) 2 Fox & Sm. 338. (c) 3 Ir. Law Rep. 547. 360 COMMON LAW REPORTS. Heron, contra. The authorities referred to apply only to eases where the real plaintiffs, who were not parties to the action, derived an immediate and actual benefit from the action. Where the plaintiff suing is insolvent the rule may also apply. But first, the Court will not stay a qui tam action upon a moÂÂtion of this nature ; and secondly, there should have been a general affidavit of merits.-[CHRISTIAN, J. I conceive that the affidavit is sufficient.]-The poverty of the plaintiff is not a sufficient ground. -[MONAHAN, C. J. Not if the action be bona fide.]-.The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act confers no additional powers upon the Court ; it is merely declaratory of their Common Law power of giving security for COSIS.-4CHRISTIAN, J. Is it denied that there are other parties behind the scenes, carrying on this action?]- It is not denied ; but security for costs is never given in qui tam actions : Foster v. Roundel (a); Gregory v. Elvidge (b). The mere fact of a person being put forward as plaintiff in an action is not a sufficient ground for security for costs : Hearsey v. PeÂÂchel (c); Armitage v. Grafton (d).-[CHRISTIAN, J. The special clause in the Act seems intended to meet such cases as the present.] He also cited The Queen v. Afalmsbury (e); Rogers on ElecÂÂtions, p. 377. Law, in reply. If an action be brought by a tenant, in which the landlord be really the party interested, the Court will order the plaintiff to give security for costs : 2 Arch. Prac., p. 1352, citing Tenant v. Brown W...