Moore and Others v Attorney-General and Others (No. 2)

CourtSupreme Court (Irish Free State)
Judgment Date01 July 1929
Date01 July 1929

Supreme Court.

Moore and Others v. Attorney-General and Others.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR SAORSTAÁT saorstaátÉIREANN éireann,WILLIAM GOAN, and Others, Defendants (No. 2) (1)

Practice - Security for costs - application to the Supreme Court - Respondents in appeal to Supreme Court applying for order - Appellants the unsuccessful co-defendants of the Attorney-General - Attorney-General sued as representing the public - No appeal by Attorney-General - Competence of appellants' appeal - Position of Attorney-General - Poverty of appellants - Expense of action and appeal - Whether"special circumstances" justifying an order - Rules of the Supreme Court (Ir.), 1905, Or. LVIII, r. 15.

Motion on Notice to the Supreme Court for an order that the appellants (the defendants in the action other than the Attorney-General) should furnish security for the costs of their appeal from the judgment of Johnston J., delivered in the action on the 18th February, 1929.

The plaintiffs in the action claimed (inter alia) a declaration that they were entitled to a several fishery for salmon and all other fish in the entire tidal portion of the River Erne, in the County of Donegal, from the falls of Assaroe at Ballyshannon to the high sea or bar of Ballyshannon; and they further claimed an injunction restraining the defendants and all other persons from trespassing upon the said several fishery. The defendants were a number of fishermen (who had challenged the plaintiffs' title) and the Attorney-General of the Irish Free State, who was sued as representing the public and the State. In their defences, the defendants denied the validity of the documentary title relied on, and contended that for various reasons the existence of a several fishery in the locus in quo was not possible. Johnston J. held, in a considered judgment, that the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief they claimed. The case is reported [1929] I.R. 191.

The defendants, other than the Attorney-General, served notice of appeal to the Supreme Court from the entire of the judgment of Johnston J. The Attorney-General served notice of appeal from the judgment in so far as it imposed any liability on him to pay the plaintiffs their costs of the action.

The plaintiffs now applied to the Supreme Court for an order that the defendants, other than the Attorney-General, should furnish security for the costs of the appeal.

This application was grounded on the affidavit of Ralph Hall Reid, solicitor for the plaintiffs, in which he stated that the plaintiffs had incurred very heavy expenses and costs in the matter of the hearing of the action, and the outlay alone amounted to the sum of £3,200, which sum did not include solicitors' costs, which he estimated at not less than £1,000; that, assuming the case would last ten days in the Supreme Court, counsels' fees, briefs of appeal, and solicitors' costs would amount to about £1,640; that the appellants had no means of paying any of the plaintiffs' costs either of the action or of the appeal; that he knew all the appellants; that some of them were small farmers, their farms consisting of ten acres down to two or three acres; that others were persons who had no means whatever of paying the plaintiffs' costs; and that the defendant, the Attorney-General...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Incorporated Law Society of Ireland v Carroll
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1996
    ......Carroll| ATTORNEY GENERAL Functions Public - Rights - Enforcement - ... 2 IR 542 SOLICITORS ACT 1954 S77(1) MOORE V AG 1930 IR 471 SPUC V COOGAN 1990 ILRM 70 ... a service in regard to "compensation for injuries", that no fee is charged for advice, and that no fee is charged ...In the case of Moore and Others v. The Attorney General 1930 I.R. 471 , Kennedy C.J., ......
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 5 February 2010
    ...Comhlucht Páipéar Ríomhaireachta Teo v Udarás na Gaeltachta [1990] 1 IR 320, Pearson v Naydler [1977] 1 WLR 899 and Moore v AG (No2) [1929] IR 544 considered; Pitt v Bolger [1996] 1 IR 108, Maher v Phelan [1996] 1 IR 95, Proetta v Neil [1996] 1 IR 100, European Fashion Products Ltd v Ee......
  • Edward Walsh and Another v County Council for County of Sligo
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 11 November 2013
    ....../Respondent [2013] IESC 48 Appeal No. 089/2011 THE SUPREME COURT ... Blount v Layard [1891] 2 Ch 681; Simpson v Attorney General [1904] AC 476; Attorney General v Antrobus [1904] 2 Ch 188; ... Co Ltd v Attorney General (1898) 32 ILTR 95 ; Moore v Attorney General (No 2) [1930] 1 IR 471 ; Incorporated ...; over a suburban garden (see Bruen v Murphy and others (High Court unreported 11 th March 1980)); or along a ......
  • Chris Gordon v The Irish Racehorse Trainers Association
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 27 April 2021
    ...make such an order if the appeal involves an issue of law of general public importance ( Moore & ors. v. Attorney General & ors. (No. 2) [1929] IR 544). (iv) While poverty or insufficiency of assets on the part of an appellant is a necessary precondition to the making of such an order, it i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT