Rich v Anderson

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 21 January 1854
• Date: 21 January 1854
• Court: High Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

RICH

and

ANDERSON.

Pomfraye's caseENR Litt. Rep. 163.

Regina v. BurnabyENR 2 Ld. Raym. 900.

The King v. Justices of DorsetENR 15 East, 594.

Lyons v. Lyons 2 Bur. 813.

Blacquiere v. HawkinsENR 1 Doug. 378.

Ladbroke v. CrickettENR 2 T. R. 649.

Karslake v. MapledoranENR 2 T. R. 473.

AnonymousENR 1 P. Wms. 477.

Sparkes v. WoodENR 6 Mod. 146.

Ex parte LynchENR 1 Madd. 15.

Iveson v. Harris 7 Ves. 251.

Rex v. Hare & Man 1 Stra. 145.

Prohibition, Ship Harmony Coop. 325.

Croucher v. CollinsENR 1 Saund. 136.

Ex parte Evans 2 Dowl. N.S. 410.

CHANCERY REPORTS. 463 ' 1854. Chancery. RICH v. ANDERSON.. (Chancery.) Jan. 21. affidavits Tins was a motion to show cause against a conditional order for The a on which an writ 'of prohibition in this case. The following circumstances application for a writ of pro appeared on the affidavits : John Anderson, the person above named hibition is grounded -as defendant, was, at the Petty Sessions held at Longwood, in the ought to be entitled simply Bounty of Meath, on the 13th of July 1853, convicted, at the suit of in the Court to which appli Lady Rich, of malicious trespass, and fined nineteen shillings, besides cation is made. costs. Although he made a claim of title to the land on which the The writ of prohibition alleged trespass was committed, Anderson was compelled by the may be issued to stay procee process of the Sessions to pay the said penalty and costs. dings before magistrates, The said John Anderson was again summoned by Lady Rich to even after con. viction. The appear before the Petty Sessions to be held for the same district, application to the Court of upon the 30th of November 1853, for another offence of the same Chancery for a writ of pro- kind, committed in the same place, and for an assault, which would hibition is to have been justified if the defendant's claim of title had been well the s Law LCommon side of that ,and founded. Notice was then again given to the magistrates of the Court the conditional said Sessions, of the intention to apply for a writ of prohibition, order, though issued from the and of the defendant's claim of title, but neither the defendant Registrar's office, should nor his attorney was present, and the magistrates sentenced him not resemble an injunction to pay a fine of 3 for the wilful trespass, and 2 for the as- order. sault,, with alternative terms of imprisonment. These fines had not yet been enforced. John Anderson and his solicitor filed affidavits...