R (O'Ferrall) v Sheehan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 17 February 1898
• Date: 17 February 1898
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Reg. (O'Ferrall)

and

Sheehan (1).

Q. B. Div.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

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.

1898.

Poor Law — Audit — Allowance — Certiorari — Poor Law (Ireland) Act, 1838 (1 & 2 Vict. c. 56), ss. 94, 114 — Local Government Board (Ireland) Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 109), s. 12 — Resolution of Guardians of the Poor applotting rate upon particular electoral division — “Order” of Guardians (1 & 2 Vict. c. 56, ss. 114, 115). (2)

The Guardians of the Granard Union having, by resolution, charged against a particular electoral division certain legal expenses which (it may be here assumed) should have been borne by the Union at large, and the an ditor having allowed the charge:—

Held (following Reg. (Porter) v. Guardians Omagh Union, 26 L. R. Ir. 619), that certiorari did not lie in respect of such allowance.

Per Gibson, J.: For the purpose of quashing an allowance, there is no right at common law to the writ.

Quaere: Was such resolution an “order” of the Guardians within 1 & 2 Vict. C. 56, s. 114?

Certiorari.

This was an application on the part of Edward More O'Ferrall to make absolute a conditional order, dated the 15th June, 1897, for a writ, directed to D. B. Sheehan, Local Government Board Auditor, to remove and quash certain orders and allowances made by him in his audit of the accounts of the Granard Poor Law Union, and his certificate, dated the 8th December, 1896, whereby, in his audit of the accounts of the Union for the half-year ending the 29th December, 1896, he had allowed as against the Knockanbaun Electoral Division of that Union, the sum of £59 0s. 5d., on the ground that the allowance and certificate of the auditor were made without and in excess of jurisdiction, and that the sum so allowed (for election and other Poor Law expenses) against the Electoral Division was improperly so allowed, so far as same included legal and other expenses incurred by the Guardians of the Granard Union in certain

proceedings referred to in the affidavit of the now prosecutor grounding the conditional order, and on the ground that the allowance and certificate were bad, inasmuch as such legal and other expenses should have been charged against the Union at large.

The conditional order had been obtained on the affidavit of the prosecutor, who stated that he was rated for the relief of the poor in the Knockanbaun Division of the Granard Union to the amount of £615 2s., the total valuation of that division being £1571 5s. The guardians having struck a rate of 11d. in the pound for the year ending September, 1896, on this division, Mr. More O'Ferrall had appealed to the County Court on the ground that the rate was excessive, and by order of that Court, dated 10th February, 1896, the rate was quashed with costs. Notwithstanding this, the guardians subsequently, in June, 1896, again struck a rate of 11d. in the pound for the year ending September, 1896, upon the division; from this Mr. More O'Ferrall had appealed, and the rate was again quashed with costs. Prior to the quashing of the first rate the guardians had proceeded to levy same against Mr. More O'Ferrall, who was compelled, under protest, to pay the sum of £27 15s. 6d. After the rate was quashed Mr. More O'Ferrall had frequently applied to the guardians for the return of this money, but without success, and had in a civil bill process obtained a decree at Sessions for the amount, with £12 13s. 10d. costs and expenses, and this decree was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

The accounts of the Union were audited by Mr. Sheehan in the month of December, 1896. In these accounts the item now in question, £59 0s. 5d., appeared as an expenditure, under the head of “Election, Law, and other Poor Law Expenses,” charged against the Electoral Division of Knockanbaun, and at the foot of the account Mr. Sheehan had certified, in the usual form:—“I hereby certify that this statement of receipts and payments of the several Electoral Divisions of the Granard Union is correct.”

The prosecutor relied on the fact that thus the entire costs of these legal proceedings were charged solely against this Electoral Division, and therefore had necessarily to be paid substantially by himself. He stated that this sum of £59 0s. 5d. included a sum of £29 3s. 11d., amount of rates refunded to ratepayers; that there had been no exceptional legal expenses incurred in connection with the division during the half-year in question other than the expenses incurred by the guardians in their litigation with him; that in the two previous half-years this item of expenditure appeared by the accounts as £1 8s. 5d. and £1 12s. 7d.; and he submitted to the Court that the costs of these legal proceedings should be charged upon the Union at large, and that this burden had been imposed upon the particular Electoral Division, of which he paid almost half the poor rate, with the indirect object of punishing him for his success in the litigation uselessly caused by the guardians themselves, and of compelling him to pay on account of those proceedings a rate much in excess of that which they were brought to quash.

The auditor, in an affidavit filed as cause, stated that he had been informed and believed that the guardians had been acting under legal advice in defending the action referred to and in their appeal from the decision of the County Court Judge; that other similar proceedings had been taken by other ratepayers of the same division; that the guardians, acting as he was informed under legal advice, had, in November, 1896, passed a resolution that all the law costs incurred in connection with the Knockanbaun rate (including the costs of the proceedings to which the prosecutor was a party) should be charged upon the rates of that division; that, when auditing the accounts of the Union in December, 1896, he found that the costs of these proceedings were charged against this particular division; that Mr. Delaney, solicitor for Mr. O'Ferrall, attended before him and objected to the expenses connected with Mr. O'Ferrall's appeal against the two previous rates being charged against this division; that, having heard and considered what was urged by Mr. Delaney, he had decided that the costs and expenses incurred by the guardians in respect of the appeals against the said rates, and the other proceedings arising thereout, were properly chargeable only against the Electoral Division of Knockanbaun, and not against the Union at large, inasmuch as these proceedings arose only in relation to, and were solely conversant...