R (McEvoy) v Corporation of Dublin

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 08 July 1878
• Date: 08 July 1878
• Court: Unspecified Court

Q. B. Div.

THE QUEEN (JOHN M'EVOY)

and

THE CORPORATION OF DUBLIN.

Woods v. ReedENR 2 M. & W. 777.

Jones v. JohnsonENRENR 5 Ex. 862; 7 Ex. 452.

Attorney-General v. Corporation of LichfieldENR 11 Beav. 120; 17 L. J. Ch. 472.

The King v. The Justices of FlintshireENR 5 B. & Al. 701.

Attorney-General v. Mayor of WiganENR Kay, 268.

Attorney-General v. Mayor of Norfolk 15 Q. B. 549.

Attorney-General v. Mayor of Norwich 2 M. & Cr. 406.

Attorney-General v. Mayor of Andrews 2 M'N. & Gor. 225.

Attorney-General v. EastlakeENR 11 Hare, 205.

Rothwell v. Borough of DublinINTL 12 I. L. R. 206.

The Queen v. Mayor and Town Council of Warwick 8 Q. B. 926.

The Queen v. Town Council of Lichfield 4 Q. B. 893.

The Queen v. Boucher 3 Q. B. 641.

Attorney-General v. Mayor of WiganENR Kay, 268.

The King v. Inhabitants of UttoxeterENR 2 Str. 932.

The King v. Justices of ShrewsburyENR 2 Str. 975.

Rex v. KingENR 2 T. R. 235.

Re The County of Mayo PresentmentsUNK 14 I. C. L. R. 392.

King v. Lediard Sayer's Rep. 6.

Rex v. Lloyd Caldecott's Rep. 309.

The Queen v. Coles 8 Q. B. 75.

King v. Mayor of Lichfield 4 Q. B. 893.

Rex v. Mayor of Warwick 8 Q. B. 926.

Attorney-General v. Mayor of WiganENR Kay, 268.

The King v. The Trustees of the Norwich Road 5 A. & E. 563.

The King v. The Justices of FlintshireENR 5 B. & Al. 761.

Harrison v. StickneyENR 2 H. L. C. 108.

Jones v. JohnsonENR 7 Ex. 456-7.

Attorney General v. LichfieldENR 11 Beav. 130.

VOL. II.) Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. 371 THE QUEEN (JOHN M'EVOY) v. THE CORPORATION Q. B. Div. OF DUBLIN. 1878. Municipal Corporations Acts (3 4 Viet. c. 108, s. 133 ; 12 8f 13 Viet. c. 91, July 4, 5, 8. s. 37)-Retrospective rate-Certiorari to quash a borough-rate. 1. Under the Irish Municipal Corporation Acts, where a municipal corporaÂtion is about to levy an illegal borough-rate, a certiorari lies to bring it up that it may be quashed. 2. A municipal corporation has no power to levy a borough-rate for the purÂpose of paying retrospectively for past liabilities. 3. The borough-fund, which was otherwise sufficient for all legitimate purÂposes, was rendered insufficient by reason of illegal payments having been made out of it and of improper sums being charged upon it, and the CorporaÂtion imposed a borough-rate to make up the deficiency :-Held, upon certiorari, that the rate was illegal, and that all orders and resolutions of the Corporation imposing it, and their precept to the Collectox-General to levy it, should be quashed. MOTION to make absolute a conditional order for a certiorari, directed to the Lord Mayor, aldermen, and burgesses, and to the Town Council of the Borough of Dublin, to bring up for the purÂpose of being quashed certain orders and resolutions made by the Corporation of Dublin, authorising certain payments out of the. borough-fund during the year ending the 31st August, 1877; and. also certain orders and resolutions, passed by the said Corporation, on or about the 10th December, 1877, or at any other times durÂing the years 1877 or 1878, for the making, applotment, levying, or collecting of a borough-rate in Dublin, and any estimate and order made for the levying thereof, and any precept issued. to the Collector-General to levy such rate, and also the said borough-rate ; and also for a writ of certiorari to bring up for the purpose of being quashed certain payments made by the Corporation out of the borough-fund during the year ending in August, 1877: upon the ground that the orders, resolutions, estimates, precept, and rate were made without jurisdiction and were ultra vires ; that there was no deficiency of the borough-fund ; and that the borough-fund was sufficient for satisfaction of all lawful claims 372 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. L. Q. B. Dim upon it ; that the borough-rate was excessive ; that several of the 1878. purposes for which it was ordered to be levied were illegal ; and THE QUEEN that the said borough-rate was partly retrospective and made to v. CORPORATION meet liabilities previously incurred. OF DUBLIN. By 3 & 4 Viet. c. 108, s. 133, the Corporation of Dublin were authorised to levy a borough-rate in case the borough-fund should not be sufficient to satisfy all lawful claims and charges on it. On the 10th December, 1877, the Corporation, by an order and resolution, directed a borough-rate to be struck of three pence in the pound, for the purpose of meeting an alleged deficiency of £7336 9s. 10d. in the borough-fund ; and a precept was issued to, the Collector-General of Rates to levy the amount of the rate. _It appeared that in the estimate for the year then current, the borough-fund amounted tO the sum of £25,996 13s. 6d., and the expenditure amounted to £33,323 3s. 4d., leaving a deficiency of £7336 9s. 10d., to meet which the rate was ordered to be levied. The sum of £33,323 3s. 4d. was composed of, amongst others, the following items :-£5410 17s. 1d., liabilities on account of tempoÂrary loans from other corporate funds (made up of £4305 ls. 10d. from the Waterworks fund ; £95 7s. 10d. from the Main Drainage fund ; £10 7s. 5d. from the Township Improvement fund; and. £1000 from the Grand Jury fund) ; £1000 for law and parliaÂmentary expenses ; £5900 for salaries (including £252 for the salary of the Lord Mayor's secretary) ; £300 compensation to Mi. Crofton ; £2000 for Mansion-house expenses ; and £2000 for Baldoyle town labourers' cottages. The payments out of the borough-fund during the year ending August, 1877, which it was sought to quash as illegal, were the following :-£296 5s. Od., retiring allowance to Mr. Crofton;. £287 17s. ld., payments to water-bailiffs ; £168 5s. 8d. for the city weigh-houses; £5 4s. Od. and £50, expenses of the Lord Mayor attendant on a journey to London to present a petition to, the House of Commons ; £1811 9s. Od., Mansion-house expenses, including £521 15s. 3d. for gas ; £52 2s. Od., expense incurred in promoting the Stephen's-green Bill ; £104 4s. Od., in promoting the Dublin Improvement Amendment Bill ; and £150 in opposing the Rathmines Bill. If these sums were charged upon the borough-fund, it would Tot. II.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. 373 not be sufficient to meet all the claims upon it, without the addi- Q. B. _Div. Lion of the borough-rate ; but if they were disallowed, as not 1878. troperly chargeable on the borough-fund, it would be sufficient of THE QUEEN t itself without any addition. These items and payments were all CORPOUITION alleged to be illegal. OF DUBLIN. S. Walker, Q. C. (with him Holmes, Q. C. and Molloy, in support of the motion) : These charges on .the borough-fund are illegal, and the borough-fund is sufficient for all lawful claims upon it, without the addition of any borough-rate, if these illegal items and payÂments are disallowed. As to the £5410 17s. ld., for loans from other corporate funds, the borough-rate must be prospective, and cannot be struck for retrospective payments : Woods v. Reed (1) ; Jones v. Johnson (2) ; Attorney-General v. Corporation of LichÂfield (3) ; The King v. The Justices of Flintshire (4). Section 133 of 3 & 4 Vict. c. 108 does not authorise the CorpoÂration to strike a rate retrospectively to meet past expendiÂture ; debts accumulating for a long period cannot be made the basis of a borough-rate. Sect. 92 of the English Municipal CorÂporations Act (5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. 76) differs from sects. 133 and 134 of the Irish Act, because it takes away the right to question the application of the borough-fund by certiorari; therefore, in EngÂland, a bill for an injunction to restrain the levying of the borough-rate is necessary : Attorney-General v. Mayor of Wigan (5). The sum of £296 5s. Od., the retiring allowance to Mr. Crofton, reapÂpearing in the estimate for 1878, under the head of £300 compenÂsation, is illegal, and cannot be legally charged on the borough-fund. The retiring allowances for officers are...