R (O'Mahony) v Ellis

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 05 November 1897
• Date: 05 November 1897
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Reg. (O'Mahony)

and

Ellis (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 — Outdoor relief — Relieving officer — Payments made without previous order — “Nature and duration of relief given” — Auditor — Surcharge — 1 & 2 Vict. c. 56, ss. 94, 95 — 10 Vict. c. 31, ss. 27, 28 — General Orders of the Local Government Board, 1853 and 1882.

An order of Poor Law Guardians giving outdoor relief must comply with the rules and regulations made pursuant to the Poor Law Acts, and, in particular, must state as well the duration as the nature of the relief given.

Where a valid order has not previously been given, payments by a relieving officer in outdoor relief (save provisional relief afforded in eases of sudden or urgent necessity) are unauthorised and illegal, and cannot be legally sanctioned by any subsequent order.

Certiorari. This was a motion to make absolute a conditional order to quash certain disallowances made by the defendant, an auditor acting under the Poor Law Acts, when auditing the accounts of the Fermoy Poor Law Union for the half-year ending the 29th September, 1896, whereby the defendant had surcharged Patrick O'Mahony, one of the guardians of the poor of said union, with payments amounting to the sum of £9 13s. 6d., the grounds alleged being that such disallowances were made without, and in excess of, jurisdiction; that the sums surcharged were improperly disallowed and surcharged; and that the certificate of disallowance and surcharge was bad as not stating the cause for which such amount was disallowed.

The certificate or note of the surcharge in question was made in the “Application and Report Book,” for one of the districts in the union, and was as follows:—

“To settle the questions as to whether the Guardians are to continue to sanction relief given in cash by the relieving officers (other than in cases of sudden and urgent necessity) I have disallowed the expenditure marked ‘X.’

On the opposite page—“I hereby surcharge the following Guardians with the sums set opposite their respective names, and I certify the said several sums to be due by them respectively—Mr. A. Heskin, £4 17s. 6d.; Patrick O'Mahony, £9 13s. 6d.; John Magnier, £4 4s.; Col. C. Deane, 15s.

“Dated this 9th December, 1896.

“William E. Ellis, Auditor.”

In the affidavits filed by the prosecutor, or in support of his case, it was stated that the system of outdoor relief, now questioned by the auditor's surcharges, had been in existence for over twenty years in this union; that no formal complaints on the ground of its irregularity had ever been made to the guardians, though it was admitted that the auditor had, on at least one occasion, made objections in regard thereto to officers of the guardians, who communicated the effect of the complaint, so far as they understood it, to the Board. Under this system, it was urged, no part of the relief given was given on the responsibility of the relieving officer; that in each case an order of the Board of Guardians authorising such relief was made previous to the first weekly payment; that, when a person became an applicant for relief, the relieving officer brought the circumstances before the guardians at the next meeting, and an order was then made for relief in cash—weekly sums, varying from 1s. 6d. to 3s.—as appeared from the Application and Report Book; and that, until such order, no payment was made by the relieving officer to any person; that subsequently, at each succeeding meeting, the relieving officer brought these cases forward, and if the parties (as was the case in the particular instances in question) continued to be in need of relief, such weekly payments were continued; while, where the circumstances of the recipients had altered for the better, the payments were ordered to be discontinued. In an affidavit, sworn by Colonel Deane, one of the guardians, it was stated that the practice was to make an order for a certain sum to be paid to a certain person for outdoor relief; that the relieving officer then gave the amount for a week, and at the following meeting, the guardians checked the outdoor relief list, and saw that the sum had...