R (Bridges and Ram) v Justices of Armagh

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 03 December 1896
• Date: 03 December 1896

Reg. (Bridges and Ram)

and

Justices of Armagh (1).

Q. B. Div

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER DIVISIONS

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND BY

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1897.

Summary jurisdiction—Order — “Dismiss” — Appeal to Quarter Sessions — Game Act (27 Geo. 3, c. 35, Ireland) — Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act (14 & 15 Vict. c. 93), s. 21

In a prosecution under the Game Act, 2 Geo. 3, c. 35 (Ir.), if the case he dismissed, the Justices' order at Petty Sessions should state whether the dismiss is on the merits or without prejudice, and an order of “Dismissed,” simply, is wrong; but the party aggrieved still has his right of appeal therefrom to Quarter Sessions.

In a prosecution for trespass in pursuit of game, the Justices entered their order on the Order Book as “Dismissed,” and refused to add “on the merits,' or “without prejudice.” The prosecutors appealed to Quarter Sessions, and there, at their own request, had the appeal struck out, as being from a bad order and untenable. They subsequently brought a second prosecution in respect of the same offence, and, on the Justices refusing to entertain it, applied for a mandamus to compel them to do so. The Court refused to grant the writ under the circumstances of the case, the prosecutors having had another remedy which they had adopted and then, of their own motion, had abandoned.

Mandamus. This was a motion to make absolute a conditional order dated 28th October, 1896, for a writ of mandamus, directed to the Justices of county Armagh, commanding them to enter continuances and to hear and determine, according to law, the matter of a complaint for trespass in pursuit of game (2), at the suit of N. Bridges and S. A. Ram, against T. M'Reynolds and T. M'Court, which had come on for hearing before the Justices at Petty Sessions at Portadown, on the 27th July, 1896.

It appeared that previously, on the 23rd of March, a complaint in respect of the same offence, and similarly framed, had come on for hearing at Portadown Petty Sessions before the resident magistrate (T. D. Gibson) and other Justices, when evidence was given on behalf of the complainants that the defendants were seen on

the day in question on these lands with greyhounds and terriers in search of game; that there was game on the lands, and that the defendants were not authorised to hunt there. The defendant M'Court did not appear, but M'Reynolds appeared by his solicitor, and contended that the complainants should prove their title and the reservation to them of the game on the lands, or that the tenant in occupation should have been joined as a complainant. The Justices retired to consider the matter, and returning, the Chairman, the resident magistrate, announced that the case was “dismissed.” The complainants’ solicitor objected to this form of order, referring to Great Southern and Western...