Mƒ€™NAMARA v APJOHN

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 04 November 1850
• Date: 04 November 1850
• Court: Exchequer (Ireland)

Exchequer.

Mƒ€™NAMARA

and

APJOHN.

The King v. SpeedENR 12 Mod. 328, also 1 Ld. Ray. 583.

Hutchins v. ChambersENR 1 Burr. 579.

Underhill v. DevenewsENR 2 Saund. 68, & n. 1.

Mayfield v. WodsleyENR 3 B. & C. 357.

Miller v. Greene 2 Comp. & D. 142.

Nugent v. Phillips 8 Ir. Law Rep. 17.

Hodgson v. GascoineENR 5 B. & Al. 88.

Hutchins v. Chambers Supra.

King v. Speed Supra.

AnonymousENR 3 Salk. 136 (3).

Evans v. RobertsENR 15 B. & C. 829.

Graves v. WeldENR 5 B. & Ad. 105.

394 CASES AT LAW. M. T. 1850. Exchequer. M`NAMARA v. APJOHN. (Exchequer) IN this case the defendant was a grand jury cess collector, and had "distrained growing crops," the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought an action for an illegal distress, and obtained a verdict. Copinger (with W. Brereton) now moved on behalf of the deÂfendant to make absolute the conditional order for a new trial. The collection of grand jury cess is authorised by the Act 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 116, s. 152, and is as follows :-" That every person duly "authorised to collect and levy any grand jury cess off any barony, " county of a city, or county of a town, as soon as he shall have " received the applotment of such cess, shall collect and levy the " same according to such applotment, and such money may be " levied by distress and sale of any goods and chattels of every "person refusing to pay the proportion therein applotted by him "or her to pay, which may be found on the premises chargeable," &c. The distress being given by statute is in the nature of an execution-a statutabte execution. Growing crops can be taken in execution-under a fi. fa. for instance ; they could therefore be legally distrained in this case : The King v. Speed (a). Lord Holt there said, "where a statute says money shall be levied by distress, this is an execution." Although growing crops are not distrainable under distress at Common Law, they are under a statutable dis tress : Hutchins v. Chambers (b). J. D. Fitzgerald, with J. Clarke. Conceding that a distress given by statute is in the nature of an execution, the question is, are growing crops intended to be embraced by the words " goods and chattels" used in the Act ? Great inconvenience would result from that construction of these (a) 12 Mod. 328, also 1 Ld. Ray. 583. (b) 1 Burr. 579. CASES AT LAW. 395 words, for the grand jury cess collector may seize at any time- M. T. 1850. Exchequer. just as the crops are showing over ground-and as no provision M'NAMARA is made by the Act for holding over what is seized, he would be...