McGrath v Bourne

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 03 May 1876
• Date: 03 May 1876
• Court: Exchequer (Ireland)

Exchequer.

M'GRATH

and

BOURNE.

Ingram v. LawsonENR9 C. & P. 326.

Hodsoll v. Stallebrass11 A. & E. 301.

Newcastle v. Broxtowe 1 N. & M. 598.

Fabrigas v. MostynUNK 2 Wm. Bl. 929.

Sharpe v. BriceUNK 2 Wm, Bl. 942.

Leith v. PopeUNK 2 Wm. Bl. 1329.

Huckle v. Money 2 Wils. 205.

Chambers v. CaulfieldENR 6 East. 256.

Duberley v. GunningENR4 T. R. 651.

Beardmore v. Carrington 2 wils. 244.

Price v. SevernENR7 Bing. 316.

Williams v. CurrieENR 1 C. B. 841.

Edgell v. FrancisUNK 1 M. & G. 222.

Berry v. Da CostaELR L. R. 1 C. P. 331.

Tracey v. BrennanUNK Ir. R. 8 C. L. 527.

Emblen v. MyersENR 6 H. & N. 54.

Sears v. LyonsENR2 Starkie, 317.

Berry v. Da CostaELR L. R. 1 C. P. 335, 336, per Keatinge, J.

Leader v. RhysENR2 F. & F. 399.

Moon v. RaphaelENR2 Bing. N. C. 310.

Campbell v. Evans 6 Ir. Jur. (O. S.) 243.

Williams v. ArcherENR 5 C. B. 318.

Leader v. RhysENR2 F. & F. 399. [10 C. B. N. S. 369].

Illegal distress — Detinue — Evidence of state of the goods when returned to the Plaintiff — Excessive damages.

160 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. Q. Bench. PER CURIAM.-" The Court doth declare that the determination 1876. of the Justices was not correct in point of law, and doth hereby STOKES order and direct the decision of the Justices in said case stated, 7.. BUCKLEY. whereby they dismissed the case of the Complainant on the merits, be and it is hereby reversed." Exchequer. M'GRATH v. BOURNE. 1876. Illegal distress-Detinue-Evidence of state of the goods when returned to the May 2, 3. Plaintiff-Excessive damages. 1. In detinue if the Defendant plead the return and acceptance of the goods after action brought, evidence on the part of the Plaintiff to show their damaged state after the commencement of the action is admissible. 2. To render damages " excessive," the amount should be such that no reasonable proportion exists between it and the circumstances of the case. TRESPASS AND DETINUE. The plaint containted three counts :- (1) for breaking and entering the Plaintiff's lands, and seizing and carrying away cows, bullocks, heifers, wad hay; (2) for seizing and impounding cows, heifers, and bullocks, whereby the Plaintiff was deprived of their use, and incurred expense in feeding them, and was prevented from selling them; (3) detaining four milch cows, five heifers, four bullocks, and twenty-four cocks of hay, and prayÂing a return of them. The Defendant pleaded one defence averring the return and acceptance after action of the goods seized, denying the carrying away averred in the first count, and lodging £10 in Court, as sufficient to satisfy the Plaintiff's claim for damages. The action was tried before PALLES, C. B., at the Sittings after Michaelmas Term, 1875. The facts of the case, as appeared from the evidence given for the Plaintiff, were as follow :-The PlainÂtiff had been a tenant of the Defendant for ten years at a yearly rent of about £66, of which in October, 1875, two years' arrears had become due. No application was made to the Plaintiff for the rent ; but on the 1st of October, 1875, the Defendant with two bailiffs entered the Plaintiff's farm, took an account of the cattle on it, and handed the Plaintiff a notice of distress. The Plaintiff then said to the Defendant : "You did not ask your rent Vol,. X.] COMMON LAW SERIES. of me. There is more here than will pay you, take and pay yourÂself ; send to any salesmaster sufficient to pay, but take...