Re John Sullivan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 08 February 1888
• Date: 08 February 1888
• Court: Exchequer Division (Ireland)

Ex.Div.

IN RE JOHN SULLIVAN.

Ex parte BeechingENR 4 B. & C. 136;

Bailey's Case & Collier'sENRUNK 3 E. & B. 607; 23 L.J.M.C.161.

Keller Unreported.

W. ThompsonENR 6 H. & N. 193.

In re ReaUNK 2 L. R. Ir. 429.

In Re Clarke 2 Q. B. 19.

Charles Lampon 3 Deac & Chitty, 751, 755.

Mathew's Case 5 Ir. Jur. (N.S.)225.

Carus Wilson's Case 7 Q. B. 984.

Besset's CaseENR 1 New Sess. Cas. 337.

Riall's CaseUNK 11 Ir. C. L. R. 280.

Re AylwardUNK 12 Ir. C. L. R. 448.

Bunbury v. FullerENR 9 Ex.111.

Ballyraggett In-questDLTR 17 Ir. L. T. R. 35.

In re AllisonENR 10 Ex. 561

Reg v. Bolton 1 Q. B. 66, at p. 75.

Ex parte Blewitt v. The Justices of ShropshireUNK 14 L. T. (N. S.) 598.

Ex parte Hopwood 15 Q. B. 121.

Colonial Bank of Australasia v. Willan L. R. 5 P. C. App. 417.

Pease v. ChaytorENR 3 B. & S. 620.

Hemphill v. FraserUNK 10 L. R. Ir. 87.

Elston v. RoseELR L. R. 4. Q. B. 4.

Cox v. Lord Mayor of LondonELR L. R. 2 H. L. 239.

Thompson v. Ingham 14 Q. B. 710.

Barber v. Nottingham and Grantham Railway CompanyUNK 33 L. J., C. P. 193.

Ex parte BradlaughELR 3 Q. B. D. 509.

In re Mansfield (The Bally-raggett Case)DLTR 17 Ir. L. T. R. 34.

Re ThompsonENR 6 H. & N. 193.

Reg. v. Bolton 1 Q. B. 66.

Reg. v. CodyUNK 10 L. R. Ir. 205.

Mogul SS. Co. v. M'Gregor, Gow, & Co.ELR 15 Q. B. D. 476.

rex v. DavisENR 6 T. R. 177.

Dexter v. HayesUNK 11 Ir. C. L. R. 119.

M'Kenna's Case Ir. Cir. Rep. 416.

Reg. v. FowleENR 4 C. & P. 592.

Thompson's CaseENR 6 H. & N.193.

Fernandes 1 bid. 717.

Bushell's CaseENR Vaughan, 135.

In re AlisonENR 10 Ex. 561.

The King v. SmithENR 8 T. R. 588.

Lawrenson v. HillUNK 10 Ir. C. L. R. 177.

Baily's Case 3 E. amp; B. 607.

Baker's Case 2 . & N. 219.

Pease v. ChaytorENR 3 B. & S. 620.

Brittain v. Kinnaird 1 Bro. & Bing. 432.

Baker's CaseENR 2 H. & N. 219.

(Brittain v. Kinnaird) 1 Bro. & Bing. 432.

Baily's CaseENR 3 E. & B. 607.

The Queen v. Bolton 1 Q. B. 66.

Reg. v. Justices of Middle-sexUNK 7 Dowl. P. C. 767.

Rex v. ReasonSC 6 . R. 375.

Rex v. Smith ENR 8 T. R. 588.

Brittain v. Kinnaird 1 Bro. & Bing. 432.

rex v. SmithENR 8 T. R. 588.

The Queen v. Bolton 1 Q. B. 66.

Colonial Bank of Australasia v. WillanELR L. R. 5 P. C. 417.

Bunbury v. FullerENR 9 Ex. 111.

The Queen v. Bolton 1 Q. B. 66.

The Colonial Bank Australasia v. WillanELR L. R. 5 P. C. 417.

The Queen v. Bolton 1 Q. B. 66.

Reg. v. Bolton 1 Q. B. 66.

Colonial Bank of Australasia v. WillanELR L. R. 5 p. C. 417.

Ex parte Hopwood 15 Q. B. 121.

Reg. v. Dunn 12 A.& E. 599.

Ex parte Hopwood 15 Q. B. 121.

reg. v. Bolton 1 Q. B. 66.

Dexter v. HayesUNK 11 Ir. C. L. R. 119.

Ex parte Bardwell 1 Mont. & Ayr. 193.

Dale's CaseELR 6 Q. B. D. 376, 474.

Ex parte Rev. J. Bell-CoxELR 20 Q. B. D. 1.

Habeas corpus ad subjioiendum — Conviction by magistrates —— Depositions —— Conspiracy to boycott — Evidence — Discharge of prisoner — Costs.

98 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. B. I. Q. B. Div. in Cook v. Enehmarsh (1); and under the Judicature Act (Ireland),. 1888. 1877, this Court has the same equitable jurisdiction as the Court C ROWL Er of Chancery. v. FURY. There was no appearance for the defendant. THE COURT made the following order : - " IT is ordered that the defendant do deliver up possession to the plainÂtiff of the said spirit license attached to the licensed house and premises, No. 3, Cross Kevin-street, and that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the costs of this motion." Solicitor for the plaintiff : Bennett Thompson. Ex. Div. IN RE JOHN SULLIVAN. Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum-Conviction by magistrates-Committal order Jan. 30. Feb. 1, 2, 4, -Depositions-Crimes Act, Ireland (50 cft 51 Viet. c. 20)-Conspiracy to F 6, 7, 8. boycott-Evidence-Discharge of prisoner-Costs. The return to a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, obtained by S., alleged that S. was in custody under a warrant of two magistrates setting out that S. had been convicted before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, under the Crimes Act, Ireland (50 & 51 Yid. c. 20), for having, with other persons, taken part in a criminal conspiracy to induce and compel one H. not to work for C. in the ordinary course of his trade, business, and occupation, and orderÂing S. to be imprisoned for one month : Held, 1, that the Exchequer Division was bound to entertain and adjudicate upon the application for the writ of habeas corpus, notwithstanding a previous refusal of the Queen's Bench Division to grant a writ of certiorari, with a view of quashing the conviction. 2 (diss. Dowse, B.), that the Divisional Court was entitled to look at the depositions for the purpose of determining whether there was any evidence before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to sustain the conviction. Held, by Dowse, B., that the Divisional Court could look at the depositions, but only for the purpose of inquiring whether the Justices had jurisdiction to. enter upon the matter before them ; also, that the Justices, having heard. and (1) 2 Ch. Div. 111. VoL. XXII.] Q. B. & EL DIVISIONS. 99 adjudicated on the case, and described themselves in the order of committal as Ex. Div. Justices of the county in which the offence was alleged to have been committed, 1888. and which county was proclaimed under the provisions of the Crimes Act, In re Ireland, 1887, it was prima fade to be presumed that they were duly qualified J. Suurrtaf. to form a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under the Act. The depositions were made by a serjeant of constabulary, who deposed inter alia that, from his own knowledge of the district where C. resided, she and her family were partially boycotted, and found difficulty in procuring the services of artisans. This deponent, and the only other witness who made a deposition, proved that H., and afterwards S., refused to work for C. :- Held, by Panes, C.B., and Andrews, J., that, even assuming that the occurÂrences deposed to had taken place within the proclaimed district, the deposiÂtions contained no evidence to sustain the conviction. The Court, in discharging the prisoner, declined to award costs against either the gaoler or the inspector of constabulary who prosecuted in the case. Ex PARTE APPLICATION on behalf of John Sullivan, a prisoner Jan. 30. in Tralee gaol, for a conditional order for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum (1). John Sullivan was, on the 13th January, 1888, summoned to appear before the Petty Sessions at Killarney, on the 17th January, 1888, to answer a complaint of having taken part in a certain criminal conspiracy. The summons was as follows :- PETTY SESSIONS (IRELAND) ACT, 1851. (14 & 15 PICT. C. 93.) CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887. (50 & 51 VIOL C. 20.) Petty Sessions District of Killarney, County of Kerry. TILE QUEEN (at the prosecution of District-Inspector C. P. Crane), Complainant; Jam. SULLIVAN of Cahirdeen, Defendant. WHEREAS a complaint has been made to me that you, the defendant, on the 2nd day of December, 1887, at Cahirdeen, in the county aforesaid, being a proÂclaimed district under the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, did, with other person and persons, unlawfully take part in a criminal conspiracy to compel and induce one Thomas Hartigan not to work for one Agnes Curtin in the ordinary course of his trade, business, or occupation. (1) Before Paurss, C.B. I/2 100 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R.I. Ex. Div. This is to command you to appear as a defendant on the hearing of said 1888. complaint at Killarney, on the 17th day of January, 1888, at 12 o'clock, before In re such Justices as shall be there, in pursuance of the said Act. J. Suurve.w. (Signed), A. MAc DERMOTT, R. M., Justice of said County, this 13th January, 1888. To JOHN SULLIVAN. The case was heard before Mr. A. Mac Dermott, R. M., and Mr. IL A. Massey, R M., sitting as Justices at Petty Sessions at Killarney, on the 17th January, 1888. The defendant was present, and was also represented by his solicitor. The following evidence was given in support of the complaint :- Deposition of Serjeant Edmund Fitzgerald : " I am stationed at Castlefarm Protection Hut. I remember, the 20th September last, going with John Langden to Thomas Hartigan's forge. I said to Thomas Hartigan there that Mrs. Curtin sent up her horse to be shod. He refused to shoe the horse. On the 11th October I went again to Hartigan's forge with Lang-den. I saw Hartigan's son at the forge on that day, and I asked the son where his father was, and he replied that He was out.' I said then, I suppose you will not shoe the horse,' and he said that he would not, as his father was out. I met Hartigan subsequently in the village of Finks, and told him that Mrs. Curtin's horse was at the forge, and asked him if he would shoe it. He said he could not. I went to Hartigan's forge again on the 2nd December last, and Hartigan was again asked to shoe Mrs. Curtin's horse, and Hartigan again refused. I then went on to the defendant's (John Sullivan's) forge at Cahirdeen, about three miles distant. Langden said to Sullivan that Mrs. Curtin sent her horse to be shod, and asked Sullivan to do it. Sullivan said, That she had a smith at her own door, and to let him do it if he liked,' or someÂthing that way. Langden then asked him if he refused, and SulÂlivan said, Don't you hear me refusing?' I went on from there to Rockfield, and got the horse shod. " From my knowledge of the district of Firies, in which Mrs. Curtin resides, I am aware that she and her family are partially Tot. XXII.] Q. B. & EX. DIVISIONS. boycotted. I am aware that they experience difficulty in procuring the services of artisans." [The witness was not cross-examined.] Deposition of John Langden : " I remember going, on the 2nd Dec. last, to John Sullivan's (the defendant's) forge. I told him that Mrs. Curtin had sent me with her horse to get it shod. He said to me, Let her own smith in her own place shoe the horse.' Before I went...