Noblett v Leitrim County Council

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1920
• Date: 01 January 1920
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

Appeal.

Noblett v. Leitrim Co. Council.

NOBLETT

and

LEITRIM COUNTY COUNCIL (1)

Local Government - Malicious injury - Damage to plough - Machine or engine - Compensation - Consequential damage - Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836 (6 & 7 Wm. 4, c. 116), sect. 135; Local Government (Ireland) Act,1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 37), sect. 5, sub-s. 1.

This was a case stated by Ronan L.J. at the Summer Assizes, 1918, for the County of Leitrim, as follows: The applicant, Joseph Noblett, had obtained from the County Court Judge a decree for £5 5s. for malicious injury to a plough, the applicant's property. From this decision the County Council appealed, The following facts were proved or admitted: A plough, the property of the applicant, was maliciously damaged on the night of the 4th March, 1918. The applicant's claim to recover compensation was based on sect. 135 of the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836, as extended by sect. 5, sub-s. 1, of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898. There was no evidence from which any inference could be drawn that the damage was done by more than one person, and accordingly the applicant's claim could not be based on section 1 of the Malicious Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1853. By reason of the injuries to the plough, which could not be repaired for some considerable time, the applicant suffered a

monetary loss over and above the cost of repairing the plough. It is admitted that £2 may be taken as the cost of repair of the plough, and that £3 5s. may be taken as the amount of consequential damages sustained by the applicant by reason of his being deprived of the use of the plough pending its repair. The questions for the Court are: 1, Is the applicant entitled under sect. 135 of the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836, to damages of a consequential nature over and above the actual loss occasioned by restoration? 2. Is a plough a "machine" or "engine" within the meaning of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 97), s. 15? If the answer to the first question is in the negative, and the answer to the second question is also in the negative, the decree is to be reversed, and the application dismissed with costs in the County Court and on appeal. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, and the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, the amount of the decree is to be reduced to £2, with costs in the County Court, each party to abide his own costs on appeal.

Malicious damage to the extent of £2 was done to an ordinary agricultural plough, the property of the applicant, who also suffered monetary loss amounting to £3 5s. by being deprived of the use of the plough, which could not be repaired for a considerable time.

Held, by the Court of Appeal, 1, that the plough was a "machine or engine . . . used . . . for ploughing" within sect. 15 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861, and accordingly that, as the damage to the plough was a crime punishable on indictment under that Act, the applicant was entitled to compensation under sect. 135 of the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836, as amended by sect. 1 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898; and 2, that the amount of compensation was not necessarily limited to the amount of actual damage done to the plough, but might include the resulting damage which was the natural consequence of the malicious act.

Cur. adv. vult.

Sir J. Campbell C. :—

This was a claim against the County Council for damages or compensation by reason of malicious injury to a plough, the property of the claimant. Malice was not disputed, and Ronan L.J., before whom the case came on appeal as a Judge of Assize, measured the compensation for the actual injury at £2, with a further sum of £3 5s., being Consequential damage for the period during which he has found as a fact that it was not possible for the claimant to have his plough repaired; but at the request of the County Council he has stated two questions for decision by this Court. The first is a comparatively trifling matter, and arises in the following way. Under the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836 (6 & 7 Wm. 4, c. 116), the right to compensation for malicious injury to property is confined to certain specified subject-matters, but by the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, sect. 5, sub-s. 1, this right was extended to all property real and personal, with the limitation that the injurious act must be a crime punishable on indictment under the Malicious Damage Act, 1861. By sect. 51 of that Act any person committing unlawful and malicious injury to property, for which no punishment is otherwise provided by the Act, is declared to be guilty of a misdemeanour, provided the damage or injury is to an amount exceeding £5. The County Council contend, and we think rightly, that for the purposes of this section the element of consequential damage must be excluded, and they therefore insist that, as the actual damage to the plough in this case did not exceed £5, the claim for compensation entirely fails. They would be plainly right in their conclusion if nowhere else in the Act is punishment provided for malicious injury to a plough, and therefore the answer to this first question plainly depends upon the effect to be given to a previous section,

...