The Guardians of The Castlebar Union v The Earl of Lucan. The Guardians of Westport Union v Same

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 January 1849
• Date: 20 January 1849
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queenƒ€™s bench.

THE GUARDIANS OF THE CASTLEBAR UNION

and

THE EARL OF LUCAN.

THE GUARDIANS OF WESTPORT UNION

and

SAME.

King v. Burrell 12 A. & E. 468.

The King v. The Justices of SurreyENR 2 T. R. 504.

The King v. The Inhabitants of BarnhamENR 8 B. & C. 104.

The King v. SkoneENR 6 East, 513.

Jones v. SmartENR 1 T. R. 51.

Milward v. Caffin 2 W. Black. 1329.

Governors of Bristol Poor v. Wait 1 A. & E. 264.

Marshall v. PitmanUNKENR 2 M. 7amp; Sc. 745.

Skingley v. Surridge 11 M. & Wels. 503.

Moss v. The Overseers of LichfieldUNK 8 Scott, N. R. 832.

Clarke v. White 2 Cr. & Dix, C. Cas. 443.

Cortis v. The Kent Water Works Company 7 B. & Cress. 330.

Bonnell v. BeigtonSC 5 . R. 182.

Durrant v. BoysENR 6 T. R. 580.

Hutchins v. Chambers 1 Bur. 580.

H. T. 1849. Queen'sBeach. THE GUARDIANS OF THE CASTLEBAR UNION v. THE EARL OF LUCAN. THE GUARDIANS OF WESTPORT UNION v. SAME. DEBT, brought by the Guardians of the Castlebar and Westport Unions against the Earl of Lucan, to recover the amount of a poor-rate made upon him as immediate lessor of persons occupying tenements of less annual value than I4 within said unions. The case was tried before LEFROY, B., at the Summer Assizes of the county Mayo, 1848 ; and in the first case, that of the Guardians of the Castlebar Union, the plaintiffs produced the rate-books, whence it appeared that the Earl of Lucan was therein rated by name as immediate lessor of the occupiers of the tenements. The plaintiffs insisted that the rate-books were conclusive evidence to establish the liability of the defendant, and thereupon closed their case. - In the second case the plaintiffs, in addition to the production of the rate-books, gave parol evidence that the defendant was the immediate lessor; but in this case the Earl of Lucan was not rated by name in the rate-books, but simply as the lessor. The defendant produced evidence to rebut the statement of his being immediate lessor, proving that he had demised the tenements to, a lessee, who had sublet to the persons in occupation. This evidence was objected to on the part of the plaintiffs, insisting, as before, that the rate-books were conclusive. The learned Judge received the evidence, and ultimately it was consented that a verdict should be entered for the plaintiffs in each case, subject to be turned into one for the defendant, in case the Court above should be of opinion CASES AT LAW. 45 that the rate-books were not conclusive evidence as to the...