McMahon v O'Sullivan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 December 1939
• Date: 20 December 1939
• Court: Supreme Court

(H.C., S.C.),

McMahon

and

O'Sullivan

- Alleged wrongful exportation of goods - Seizure of motor lorry containing the goods by Customs Officer - Demand by owner for return of lorry - Application by Customs Officer to District Justice under s. 207 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, for forfeiture of the lorry - Refusal of application by District Justice - Action brought in Circuit Court by owner for return of lorry and for damages for trespass, trover and conversion and detinue -Judgment for owner with general damages and special damages for depreciation of lorry during detention - Circuit Court Judge certifying under s. 267 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, that there was reasonable and probable cause for the seizure - Whether damages limited to two pence pursuant to that section Customs Consolidation Act, 1876 (39 40 Vict., c. 36), ss. 207, 267.

1. Sect. 267 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, provides:—"When in any information or suit relating to any seizure a verdict or judgment shall be found for the claimant, if it shall appear to the Judge or Justice before whom the same was heard that there was reasonable or probable cause of seizure, and such Judge or Justice shall so certify on the record or information, such certificate may be pleaded a bar to any action, indictment, or other proceeding against the seizor; and in case any action, indictment, or other proceeding shall be brought to trial against any person on account of any seizure (whether any information be brought to trial for the condemnation of the same or not), and a verdict shall be given for the plaintiff, if the Judge or Justice before whom such action, indictment, information, or other proceeding shall be tried or heard shall certify on the record, information, or other written proceedings that there was reasonable or probable cause for seizure, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to more than two pence damages nor to any costs, nor shall the defendant be fined more than one shilling; and the production of such certificate, or a copy thereof, verified by the signature of the officer of the Court, shall be sufficient evidence of such certificate." Plaintiff's motor lorry, which was being driven by his servant, was seized by the defendant, a Customs Officer in the employment of the Revenue Commissioners, on the ground that it was being employed in the exportation of sheep skins contrary to the provisions of the Sheep Skins (Control of Export) Act, 1934. The plaintiff...