Smith-Barry v Dawson

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 31 July 1891
• Date: 31 July 1891
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)

Chancery Division.

SMITH-BARRY

and

DAWSON.

Weadle Middlesex Waterworks Co.ENR 1 Jac. & W.358, at p. 369.

Dounshire v. O' Brien 19 L.R. Ir. 380.

Avorg v. Andrews 30 W. R. 564.

Contempt of Court — Attachment — Third parties.

V.-C. first advertisement in the latter paper to the date fixed for sending 1891. in claims. The excuse that there was in 1871 only one London STUART decry paper having any circulation of importance is not an answer BABINGTON. to the Court, and is not accurate in fact. I cannot accede to the argument addressed to me by Mr. Robertson, that in this case it was unimportant that the time given was insufficient, inasmuch as the person affected resided in Australia, and could not in any event have seen them in time to send in his claim, for I must act upon a general rule. I must, therefore, decree the sum claimed to be brought into Court, or, in default, give the usual decree for the administration of Richard Babington's estate. Solicitor for the plaintiff : Mr. G. M. M'Gusty. Solicitor for the defendant (Richard Babington) : Mr. J. M. Ross Todd. V.-C. SMITH-BARRY v. DAWSON. 1891. July 31. Contempt of Court-Attachment-Third parties. The plaintiff having obtained an injunction whereby the defendants were restrained from interfering with or disturbing his markets and fairs, or doing any acts whereby he should be deprived of the tolls and customs to which he was, by the judgment, declared entitled :- Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to an order that writs of attachment should issue against persons, not defendants in the action, who had knowingly acted in contravention of the injunction. APPLICATION by the plaintiff, on notice, for liberty to issue writs of attachment against persons, not parties to the action, for their contempt of Court in not obeying an injunction, whereby the defendants, their servants, and agents were restrained from interfering with or disturbing the plaintiff's markets and fairs, or doing any acts whereby the plaintiff should be deprived of the tolls and customs to which he was, by the judgment in the action, declared entitled. An affidavit of Patrick Hanaran, filed on behalf 'VOL. XXVII.] CHANCERY DIVISION. of the plaintiff, stated that copies of the judgment and injunction had been conspicuously posted in the Fair Green, that he saw the persons named in the schedule to the affidavit, after he had cautioned them against so doing, and after he had drawn their attention to a printed copy of the...