R (Bridges and Ram) v Justices of Armagh

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date03 December 1896
Date03 December 1896
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Ireland)
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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State (at the prosecution of John Clarke) v Maura Roche
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1986
    ...notwithstanding that the matter could in any event be re-entered in the District Court. R. (Bridges and Ram) v. Armagh Justices [1897] 2 I.R. 236 approved. 6. That, if it cannot be shown that a District Court clerk (or other authorised person) has personally considered a complaint made to h......
  • State (at the prosecution of John Clarke) v Maura Roche
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1987
    ...notwithstanding that the matter could in any event be re-entered in the District Court. R. (Bridges and Ram) v. Armagh Justices [1897] 2 I.R. 236 approved. 6. That, if it cannot be shown that a District Court clerk (or other authorised person) has personally considered a complaint made to h......
  • DPP v Murphy
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 5 February 2007
    ...v. Special Criminal Court [1999] 1 I.R. 60. The People (Attorney General) v. McGlynn [1967] I.R. 232. The Queen v. Justices of Armagh [1897] 2 I.R. 236. R. (Miller) v. Justices of Monaghan (1906) 40 I.L.T.R. 51. The State (Attorney General) v. Judge Connolly [1948] I.R. 176. The State (McLo......
  • Clarke v Roche
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 20 March 1986
    ...J. - 20/3/86) - [1986] IR 619 - [1986] ILRM 565 |The State (Clarke) v. Roche| Citations: BLAKE V BEECH 1876 1 EXD 320 BRIDGES, R V ARMAGH 1897 2 IR 236 DCR 1948 O.44 DCR 1948 r66 DCR 1948 r88 DCR 1948 r88.1 DCR 1948 r88.3 DIXON V WELLS 25 QBD 249 DPP V GILL 1980 IR 263 DPP V MCQUAID UNREP M......
  • 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