Ryan v Great Southern and Western Railway Company

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 24 November 1892
• Date: 24 November 1892
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)

Appeal.

Before JOHNSON, HOLMES, GIBSON, and MADDEN, JJ.

RYAN

and

GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY CO.

Colley v. London North-Western Railway Company 5 Ex. Div. 277.

Corry v. Great Western Railway Co.ELR 6 Q. B. Div. 237; 7 Q B. Div.

Page v. Great Eastern Railway Co. 24 L. T. (N.S.) 585.

Dawson v. Midland Railway Co.ELR L. R. 8 Exch. 8.

Wiseman v. Booker 3 C. P. Div. 184.

Ricketts v. Eastern and Western India Docks, & c., Co. 12 Scott's C. B. 160.

Railway Company Liability to fence as against adjoining land Sufficiency of fence , 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 20), sects. 68-73 Injury to cattle.

VoL. XXXII.) Q. B. & EX. DIVISIONS. 16 hands of the district inspector was the balance of the 27 Appeal. remaining, after paying the expense of defending Taylor at the 1892. Assizes. MORRIS V. Wakely, for appellant. TAYLOR. Per Curiam. There is no need for a receiver. Issue a fi. fa., deliver it to the sheriff, call on him to seize the money in the district inspector's hands, and if he should refuse, come to this Court again with the fact stated in an affidavit. Solicitor for appellant : P. A. Brown. G. Y. D. RYAN v. GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY CO. (1). Railway Company-Liability to fence as against adjoining land-Sufficiency of fence-Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 4.9 not. c. 20), sects. 68-73-Injury to cattle. In 1862 a Railway Company acquired lands under their statutory powers, and, in constructing their line, fenced it off from adjoining lands, occupied by plaintiff's predecessor, by a ditch or gripe, and bank with posts and rails on top : the ditch being on the plaintiff's side, the bank on the railway side, of the fence. In 1890 plaintiff's cow slipped into and was found dead in the ditch. Upon case stated on appeal from plaintiff's civil bill for damages for loss of the cow : Held, that the civil bill was not maintainable, and that the fence was proÂÂperly and sufficiently constructed by the defendant Company. Colley v. London 4. North- Western Railway Co. (5 En. Div. 277) followed. Corry v. Great Western Railway Co. (6 Q. B. Div. 237 ; 7 Q. B. Div. 322) distinguished. SPECIAL CASE, stated by Harrison, J., sitting as Judge of Assize at the Summer Assizes, 1891, for the County of Wexford, on the hearing of a civil-bill appeal, to the following effect: - (1) Before JonNsoN, HOLMES, GIBSON, and MADDEN, JJ. Q. B. Div. 1892. Nov. 24. 16 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. Q. B. Div. The civil bill claimed 20 for damages for the loss of a cow, 1892. the property of the plaintiff, on the 22nd December, 1890, which RYAN the civil bill alleged to have been drowned in a dyke belonging to V. „ u G. 8' 66 tin.• the defendant Company. mAILWAY 0. Plaintiff was a farmer holding about fifty acres of land, through which ran the defendant Company's railway. A portion of this land was taken by the defendant Company in 1862, when their Bagnalstown branch line was being constructed. At that time the defendant Company made a fence for the accommodation of the occupiers and owners of an adjoining piece of land, of which a former tenant was then in possession. This tenant conÂÂtinued in possession until some five or six years ago, when the plaintiff became tenant of same. The fence consisted of a bank, and a ditch or " grip " 5 feet wide at top, 2 feet 9 inches wide at bottom, and 2 feet 3 inches deep. This ditch was upon, and was dug to the edge of, the land...