Re Richard Hazleton, A Bankrupt

CourtCourt of Appeal (Ireland)
Judgment Date21 April 1915
Date21 April 1915



Egerton v. Lord Brownlow and OthersENR 4 H. L. C. 128.

Ex parte Benwell, In re HuttonELR 14 Q. B. D. 301.

Ex parte Huggins; In re HugginsELR 21 Ch. D. 85.

Ex parte Smith In re Angerstein L. K. 7 Ch. App. 662.

Ex parte Webber, In Re Webber 18 Q. B.C. 111.

Ex parte Wicks, In re WicksELR 17 Ch. D. 70.

Flarty. Odium 3 T. K. 681.

Hardy v. Fothergill 13 A. C. at p. 358.

In re DoyleIR [1906] 2 I. R. 538.

In re ElfordELR [1910] 1 Ch. 814.

In re HurrellUNK 12 T. L. R. 133.

In re Jones, Ex parte LloydELR [1891] 2 Q. B. 231.

In re MiramsUNK 8 Morr. 59.

In re RobertsELR [1900] 1 Q. B. 122.

In re Rogers, Ex parte CollinsELR [1894] 1 Q. B. 425.

In Re Saunders, Ex parte SaundersELR [1895] 2 Q. B. 117.

In re ShineELR [1892] 1 Q,. B. 522.

Janson v. Driefontein Consolidated Mines, LimitedELR [1902] A. C. 484

Lucas v. Harris 1 Q,. B. D. 127.

Miller v. SalomonsENR 7 Ex. at p. 560.

Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition CompanyELR [1894] A. C, at p. 554.

The, King v. the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury 4 A. & E. 286.

Bankruptcy — Member of Parliament — Annual Payment to — Salary or Income — Attachment — Public Policy ——

Von. II.] KING'S BENCH DIVISION. enactment in Order LIX, Rule 38, and, in contravention of the statute, execution might issue for a sum of costs over £10: Order LXV, Rule 65 (54). In such a case as the present, I think the certificate of the taxing master ought, in addition to showing that he has taxed the bill as referred to him to a certain amount, show on the face of it that, having regard to Order LIX, Rule 38, he can certify for merely £10 costs and no more. I shall declare that the plaintiffs are to have £10 for their costs and no more (1). Solicitors for the applicants : Moloney 8f Son. Solicitors for the plaintiffs : A. H. Allen 8f Son. A. C. 425 K. B. Div. 1915. H EALY V, SPILLANE (No. 2). Kenny J. IN RE RICHARD HAZLETON, A BANKRUPT. Appeal. 1915. Bankruptcy—Member of Parliament—Annual Payment to—Salary or Income —Attachment—Public Policy—Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act, 1857 April 19, 21. (20 4. 21 Vict. c. 60), s. 319—Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1872 (35 4- 36 Vict. c. 58), s. 51. The annual payment of £400 to a member of the House of Commons (including an allowance of £100 for expenses), provided for by the AppropriaÂtion Acts, is not a salary or income in respect of which, in the event of the bankruptcy of the member, an order can be made under sect. 51 of the Bank. ruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1872, for the payment thereof, or any part thereof, to the official assignee. This was an appeal from au order of Mr. Justice Boyd, sitting as a judge of the King's Bench Division in Bankruptcy, dated the 19th day of February, 1915, whereby it was ordered that the bankrupt, Richard Hazleton, should, out of his salary or income as member of Parliament for the division of North Galway, pay until further order to Alfred George Hollinshead, official assignee of the Court, the sum of £200 yearly in four quarterly instalments of £50 each, to be applied by the said official assignee in discharge of the debts due in this matter. (1) See to like effect as the foregoing judgment : Sparrow v. Hill, 7 Q.B.D. 362, 8 Q.B.D. 479; In re Castle, 36 Ch.D. 194; In re Fletcher and Dyson, [1903] 2 Ch. 688 [Rep.]. 426 TRH IRISH REPORTS. [1915. Appeal. Mr. Hazleton was, in the year 1910, elected as a member of 1915. Parliament for the division of North Louth, but was unseated on In re a petition, and ordered to pay the costs of the petitioners, which HAZLETON. amounted to £2162 8s. 7d. He owed no other debts. On the 5th day of June, 1914, Mr. Hazleton was adjudicated a bankrupt on his own petition, and the order now appealed against was made on the hearing of an application by his assignees in bankruptcy, under section 319 of the Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 60), and section 51 of the Bankruptcy Ireland Amendment Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 58), for the attachment of the bankrupt's salary or income as a member of Parliament for the division of North Galway, to which seat he had been elected subsequent to the petition. The bankrupt was admittedly in receipt of payment at the rate of £400 per annum, including an allowance of £100 for expenses, as one of the members of the House of Commons not in receipt of salaries as Ministers, as officers of the House, or as officers of His Majesty's Household. Henry K.C. (with him M`Cann`,, for the appellant :— The allowance made to a member of Parliament cannot be attached under any section of the Bankruptcy Acts. It is not " salary or income " within section 51 of the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1872. It is merely a voluntary allowance made to a member of Parliament, as such, for the purposes of his membership, and to enable him to perform his duties to his conÂstituency and the country at large. It would be against public policy to appropriate any portion of such an allowance for any other purpose. Nor can it be said that such an allowance comes within the provisions of sect. 319 of the Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act, 1857. At the date of that Act payment of members was unknown, and such payments should not be held to, be affected by the section in the absence of legislative enactment. The principle of public policy was carefully guarded in section 319, and should not be encroached upon. In Ex parte Wicks, In re Wicks (1) the Court of Appeal held that a purely voluntary (1) 17 Ch. D. 70. VOL. IL] KING'S, BENCH DIVISIOA. 427 allowance made to a bankrupt was not " income " within the Appeal. meaning of section 90 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. James L.S. 1915. there said : " It seems to me that the words mean a salary or an In re HAZLETON. income to which the bankrupt is legally or equitably entitled, and not a mere voluntary payment." No member of Parliament is legally or equitably entitled, as such, to a salary of £400 per annum. The allowance is purely voluntary, resting on nothing more than a resolution of the House of Commons itself. In Ex parte Webber, In Re Webber (1) it was similarly held that a voluntary allowance granted by the Secretary of State for India to an officer of the Indian army on compulsory retirement, to which the recipient had no legal claim, was not " income " within the meaning of sect. 53, sub-s. 2, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 ; see also In Re Saunders, Ex parte Saunders (2), Lucas v. Harris (3). Ex parte Huggins ; In re Huggins (4), will be relied upon by the respondents, but there is no analogy between the pension of a retired judge and a temporary allowance such, as this. There is an officer of the House of Commons whose duty it is to make these payments to members when the amount thereof is duly approÂpriated, but what power would he have to make payment to the assignees ? The order for payment is continuous, but even if this allowance be regarded as in the nature of wages earned by the member in respect of his attendance at the House of Commons, it could not be attached. He could not be compelled to continue his attendance : In re Jones, Ex parte Lloyd (5) ; Ex parte Howell, In re Hutton (6) ; In re Harrell (7); In re Mirams (8); in re Rogers, Ex parte Collins (9). Healy KC., and Hanna K. C. (with them, D. B. ,Sullivan), for the respondents : We contend that this payment of £400 per annum is strictly " salary or income." No doubt there is no legislative authority for the payment, but when the payment is made, it is paid as salary, and accepted as such. The payments are included in the (1) 18 Q. B. D. 111. (6) 14 Q. B. D. 301. (2) [1895] 2 Q. B. 117. (7) 12 T. L. R. 133. (3) 1 Q,. B. D. 127. (8) 8 Mom 59. (4) 21 Ch. D. 85. (9) [1894] 1 Q. B. 425. (5) [1891] 2 Q. B. 231. 428 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1915. estimates for civil services under the heading " Salaries and Allowances." It is not immaterial that £100, portion of the £400, is called an " allowance." If not " salary," the payment when received is " income." Income tax is payable in respect of it. In re Huggins (1) is clear authority in our favour. Jessel M.R. there says in reference to the pension of the retired colonial judge: " The word income is as large a word as can be used. It is not the less income because it has to be voted every year by the Colonial Legislature." There the salary was attached, although absolutely protected in India. See also judgment of Eve J. in In re Elford (2). Payment of members, however irregular at present, is nothing new. Formerly every knight of the shire received four shillings by the day, and every citizen or burgess two shillings or more, to be levied by the sheriffs ; see 35 H. 8 c. 11. By 8 Henry 6, c. 7, it was enacted that knights of the ParliaÂment returned contrary to the ordinance, " shall lose their wages." No privilege attached to such payments. The order of the Court does not require any officer of the House to pay over any sum to the assignees ; it merely attaches portion of the money when received by the bankrupt. If the Treasury refused to pay the latter, a mandamus would lie to compel payment, once the money was appropriated : The King v. the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury (3). When protection is intended to be given to payments of a public nature, it is expressly provided by statute. Thus by sect. 6 of 8 Edw. 7 c. 40, an old age pension is made inalienable. In In re Doyle (4) it was held that where the son of an evicted tenant had allotted to him a farm by the Estates Commissioners, his assignees in bankruptcy were entitled to intervene and claim the farm on behalf of his creditors ; but this being contrary to the intention of the Legislature, it was provided by sect. 11 of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, that lands purchased by an evicted tenant should not be made available in bankruptcy for the discharge of debts contracted prior to the vesting. If it be said that there...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Hollinshead, Appellant; Hazleton, Respondent
    • Ireland
    • House of Lords (Ireland)
    • 10 Diciembre 1915
    ...(Ireland) Amendment Act, 1872 (35 4 36 Vice. c. 58), s. 51. APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of Appeal reported [1915] 2 I. R. 425, sub NOM, In re RICHARD HAZLETON, a Bankrupt. Healy K.C., and Hanna K.C. (with them D. B. Sullivan), for the appellant. Henry K.C., and Hugh J. JP Cann (wi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT