Re John Aikin

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 05 February 1881
• Date: 05 February 1881
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Q. B. Div.

Before MAY, C. J., FITZGERALD and BARRY, JJ.

IN RE JOHN AIKIN

Julia ByrneUNK 6 L. R. Ir. 455.

In re GreggUNK 3 Ir. L. R. 316.

The King v. James 1 Dowl. & Ryl. 559.

Grady v. HuntUNK 5 Ir. C. L. R. 445.

In re Clarke 2 Q. B. 619.

Christie v. UnwinENR 11 Ad. & El. 373.

M'Combe v. GrayUNK 4 L. R. Ir. 435.

Trousdell v. KearseUNK Ir. R. 8 C. L. 25.

Page v. WilliamsUNK 1 Ir. C. L. R. 527.

In re AylwardUNK 12 Ir. C. L. R. 448.

Greaves v. Keane 4 Ex. Div. 73.

Habeas corpus —— Contempt in not paying money — Default by person acting in a fiduciary capacity — Period of imprisonment.

50 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. Q. B. Div. IN RE JOHN AIKIN (1). 1881. Habeas corpus-Debtors' Act-Contempt in not paying money-Default by Jan. 31, person acting in a fiduciary capacity-Period of imprisonment. Feb. 5. A defaulting Receiver, having been committed to prison under a writ of attachment issued by the Chancery Division, applied before twelve months of his imprisonment had elapsed for a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that the writ of attachment was irregular, in not specifying twelve months as the duration of the imprisonment :-Held, that the writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. In re Byrne (6 L. R. I. 455) observed on and distinguished. MOTION on behalf of John Aikin for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. The applicant was in custody under a writ of attachment issued on the 3rd February, 1880, pursuant to an. order of the Vice-Chancellor, dated the 2nd February, 1880, for contempt in not accounting as Receiver in a cause of Acheson v. Acheson. The writ of attachment was in the usual form. It did not specify the length of time for which the imprisonment was to continue. Adams, on behalf of the applicant : Under section 5 of the Debtors' Act the period of imprisonÂment cannot exceed twelve months. There should be a statement on the face of the order that the prisoner is not to be detained longer in custody. In the case of Julia Byrne (2) a somewhat similar order had been made by a County Court Judge in an administration action, and the order was held defective and the prisoner discharged ; and see also In re Gregg (3) ; The King v. James (4) ; Grady v. Hunt (5) ; In re Clarke (6) ; Christie v. Unwin (7). The proper course is for the party to apply to the Court ; for the gaoler is not bound to release him even at the expi (1) Before MAY, C. J., FITZGERALD and BARRY, JJ. (2) 6 L. R. Ir. 455. (3) 3 Ir. L. It...