Re Michael Russell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 26 April 1888
• Date: 26 April 1888
• Court: Exchequer Division (Ireland)

Ex. Div

IN RE MICHAEL RUSSELL.

In re J. SullivanUNK 22 L. R. Ir. 98.

Govern v. RowlandUNK 7 Ir. C. L. R. 218.

Ex parte SullivanUNK 22 L. R. Ir. 98.

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

Australasia v. WillanELR L. R. 5P. C. C. 417.

Bailey's Case 3E. & B. 607.

Collier's Case Ibid.

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

Govern v. RowlandUNK 7 Ir. C. L. R. 218, 619.

The Overseers of the Poor of Walsall v. London and North-Western Railway Co. 4 App. Cases, 30.

The Queen v. ChantrellUNK L. R. 10Q. B. 597.

Sullivan's Case 22L. R. Ir. 98.

— Appeal from conviction of Court of Summary Jurisdiction —— Jurisdiction — Habeas corpus.

Vox.. XXII.] Q. B. & EX. DIVISIONS. 487 -that argument. The 30th sect. is an overriding section. It over- Q. B. Dir. rides vested rights as to recovery of rent and various other matters 1888. It is admitted that it enables the Civil Bill Court to make the rent DRAPER'S Co. V. payable by instalments within one year, and also that the Superior BRADLEY. Court is invested with absolute power to make it payable by instalments over any number of years. And it appears to be an unreasonable construction to be asked to put on the section to say that the Civil Bill Court has not the same jurisdiction as the superior Court, particularly when it is remembered that ninety-nine out of a hundred of these cases of ejectment are in the Civil Bill Court-that is to say, in other words, that the Court which has to act in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred has not the same power (or has it in a limited degree only) as the Court which has to act in only one case out of a hundred. O'BRIEN and GIBSON, JJ ., concurred. Solicitors for the plaintiffs: Glover 8f .Ar Guckin. • Solicitor for the defendants : John Harbison. IN RE MICHAEL RUSSELL. Ex. .Div. 1888. Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887-Appeal from conviction of A Pn2 319,6 0 ,2 Court of Summary Jurisdiction-Order of affirmance by County Court Judge-Jurisdiction-Habeas corpus. An order of a County Court Judge, on appeal from a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, affirming a conviction under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, is conclusive as to the existence, as well as sufficiency, of evidence to sustain the conviction, unless the evidence on which his decision is made be set out in the order as its basis. Ex PARTE APPLICATION on behalf of Michael Russell, a prisoner in Clonmel Gaol, for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. Michael Russell, was, on the 27th December, 1887, summoned to appear before the petty sessions at Mullinahone, Co. Tipperary, 48$ LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). L. R. I. Ex. Div. on the 30th December, 1887, to answer a complaint that he "on 1888. the 12th day of December, 1887, at Drangan, in the county afore-In re said, being a proclaimed district under the provisions of the M. RUSSELL. Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, did with other person and persons unlawfully take part in a criminal conspiracy not to deal with or sell to one Samuel Mitchell in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation." On the conclusion of the case the Justices made an order, of which the following is the certificate :- [Title.] "I hereby certify that, upon the hearing of a complaint that the defendant Michael Russell, on the 12th day of December, 1887, at Drangan, in the county aforesaid, being a proclaimed district under the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, did, with other person and persons, unlawÂfully take part in a criminal conspiracy not to deal with or sell to one Samuel Mitchell, in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation, an order was made on the 30th December, 1887, by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction against the said Michael Russell of Drangan, to the following effect, viz. :- " Michael Russell to be imprisoned, without hard labour, for six weeks in Clonmel Gaol. " (Signed), S. F. CAREW, " Resident Magistrate, appointed under 6 0 7 Wm. IV.. " This 31st day of March, 1888." The defendant appealed from the order, entered into recogÂnizances, and the appeal was heard before His Honor J. A. Wall, Q. C., County Court Judge of Tipperary, on the 24th January, 1888. On the said hearing the depositions of the witÂnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution at the Petty Sessions were respectively read in evidence on behalf of the prosecution; and the several witnesses were re-examined, but no note of their evidence in the form of further depositions or otherwise was taken., The deposition of Jane Connors was entered and read for the defence. Counsel on behalf of the defendant objected to the form of the summons ; and the County Court Judge thereupon amended the said summons by inserting the words " to compel and induce certain persons " after the words " criminal conspiracy," anal Vol.. XXII.] Q. B. & EX. DIVISIONS. 489 ordered that said order so amended should stand confirmed. On Ex. Dir. the hearing of the appeal, counseKon behalf of the prisoner objected 1888. to the evidence given on behalf of the prosecution, on the groundIn " M. Russui. that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the charge ; and also objected that the County Court Judge had no jurisdiction to amend. The Judge overruled these objections, and made the order confirming the conviction, having amended the summons and order, as above. The Exchequer Division having granted a conditional order for a habeas corpus ad subjicienduni, Carson (with him Ronan), showed cause : No question can arise as to the jurisdiction of the County Court Judge to adjudicate upon the case. The evidence taken before the County Court Judge is not before this Court. The decision sought to be disturbed is that of an appellate tribunal, which had jurisdiction to determine the question of law ; and as the evidence on which that question arises does not appear on the face of the order, the Court cannot review that order on a habeas corpus. In re J. Sullivan (1) is therefore distinguishable. No authority can be cited in support of the proposition that an order of the appellate tribunal can be questioned. on habeas corpus. The jurisdiction of the Court of Quarter Sessions to adjudicate on the question depends upon its own determination of the sufficiency of the evidence before it; and this determination cannot be questioned by a Superior Court. Daniel Kehoe (with him Healy), in support of the conditional order : The Court has jurisdiction to review the evidence given on appeal before the County Court Judge. The decision of the majority of this Court in In re J. Sullivan (1), though limited to adjudication by Justices at Petty Sessions is applicable to this case. The Court of Quarter Sessions is an inferior Court ; and it is comÂpetent to a prisoner to show that it had no jurisdiction to affirm the (1) 22 L. R. Ir. 98. 490 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. It. I. Bx. Div. conviction of the Justices. The order made by the County Court 1888...