Staunton v Powell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 30 January 1867
• Date: 30 January 1867
• Court: Court of Exchequer Chamber (Ireland)

Exch. Cham.

STAUNTON

and

POWELL.

The Guardians of the North Dublin Union v. ScottUNK 1 Ir. C. L. R. 76.

The Guardians of the Limerick Union v. WhiteUNK 2 Ir. C. L. R. 630.

The Guardians of the Limerick Union v. WhiteUNK 2 Ir. C. L. R. 630.

Staley v. The Overseers of Castleton 5 B. & sm. 505.

Harter v. The Overseers of Salford 6 B. & Sm. 591.

The King v. Morgan 2 Ad. & Ell. 618.

The King v. Inhabitants of AberystwithENR 10 East, 354.

The King v. Morgan 2 Ad. & Ell. 618.

The Guardians of the North Dublin Union v. ScottUNK 1 Ir. C. L. R. 76.

Staley v. The Overseers of Castleton 5 B. & Sm. 505.

Harter v. The Overseers of Salford 6 B. & Sm. 591.

Liability to Rates House occupied by Furniture 12 & 13 Vct. c. 91.

THE IRISH REPORTS. it is distinctly stated, that so much of the first count, and so much only, as related to the subsequent larceny, was read in the first inÂÂstance to the prisoner, and that to that part of the count the prisoner pleaded guilty ; and that then, and not till then, it was brought by arraignment to the notice of the prisoner that he was charged with the prior offence. It therefore does not appear to me that any subÂÂstantial injury was done to him. However, I entirely concur with the other members of the Court in thinking that all danger of anyÂÂthing of the kind should be avoided ; and I am sure that the instrucÂÂtions which will be given on the subject will lead to such alteraÂÂtions in the printed forms of these indictments as will completely obviate all risk upon the subject. Attorney for the Crown : The Crown Solicitor for Waterford. Attorney for the Prisoner : F. Barlow. Exch. Chum. STAUNTON v. PO WELL. 1867. Liability to Bates-House occupied by Furniture-Collection of Rates (Dublin) San.23, 24, Act, 12 & 13 Viet. e: 91. 30. A was the owner of a house in Dublin, and furnished it suitably for letting. The house so furnished was occasionally let; but during certain intervals of time remained unlet and unoccupied, except by the furniture which remained in it. Held, reversing the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, that A was liable to rates in respect of the premises, both while the house was let and while it was so unlet. Tins was an appeal from the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. The following case had been stated by consent for the opinion of the Court below, pursuant to the Common Law Procedure Act (Ireland), 1853, s. 92. The action in this case was brought by the Plaintiff as Collector-General of Rates in the city of Dublin, duly appointed under the 12 & 13 Viet. c. 91, intituled "An Act to provide for the Collection of Rates in the city of Dublin," for the recovery of the rates and rents due from the Defendant as the occupier of the house, offices, COMMON LAW SERIES. 183 and small yard, No. 99, Stephen's-green, South, in the city of Dublin, Exch. CTham. which rates were duly made, assessed, and declared by the Plaintiff 1867. as such Collector-General, under the 48th section of the 12 & 13 TAL CFNTON Viet. c. 91; and notices thereof were duly inserted and published, POWELL. pursuant to the 52nd section of the said Statute. Anne M'Donnell was duly rated for said premises as occupier thereof ; and Defendant having purchased the landlord's interest in said premises in the Bankrupt Court, and after said Anne M'Donnell had left said premises, not being able to let said house and premises, on the 1st June, 1864, the Defendant caused the same to be furnished, and advertised to be let as a furnished or unÂÂfurnished house, or the interest in the same to be sold. On the 15th day of July, 1864, the Defendant succeeded in setting said house and premises as a furnished house to one Wilson Walsh, as a weekly tenant ; and said Wilson Walsh continued to occupy said house and premises till the 19th day of August, 1864, when he left. The Defendant then again advertised said house and premise's to be let as a furnished or unfurnished house, or the interest to be sold ; and said house and premises were again let as a furnished house by the Defendant on the 8th day of March, 1865, to one Maurice Maude, as a monthly tenant, and the said Maurice Maude occupied same as Defendant's tenant down to the 8th day of May, 1865, when he left. During the intervals between the aforesaid lettings, the said premises were not otherwise occupied than by Defendant's furÂÂniture. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is liable for the rates on said house and premises for the periods during which he furÂÂnished said house, and advertised same to be let as aforesaid. The Defendant alleges that he is only liable to rates on said house and premises for the periods during which same were actually set to and occupied by his under-tenants. The question for the opinion of the Court is Whether the Defendant's furniture being in said house and preÂÂmises, No. 99, Stephen's-green, whilst said house and premises were advertised to be so let or sold, constitutes such an...