The Guardians of The Poor of The Limerick Union v White

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date26 April 1852
Date26 April 1852
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench

THE GUARDIANS OF THE POOR OF THE LIMERICK UNION
and
WHITE.

Churchwardens of Birmingham v. Shaw 10 Q. B. 868.

Faweett v. FowlisENR 7 B. & C. 394.

Marshall v. PitmanENRENR 9 Bing. 595; S. C., 2 M. & Sc. 745.

The Guardians of the North Dublin Union v. Scott 1 Com. Law Rep. 76.

The King v. The Inhabitants of St. Nicholas RochesterENR 5 B. & Ad. 226.

Rex v. Morgan 2 A. & E. 618.

Guardians of the Castlebar Union v. The Earl of Lucan 13 Ir. Law Rep. 44.

Milward v. Caffin 2 W. BL 1330.

Bristol Union v. Wait 1 A. & E. 264.

630 COMMON LAW REPORTS. E. T. 1852. Queen's Bench THE GUARDIANS OF THE POOR OF THE LIMERICK UNION v. WHITE. [RESERVED CASE.] Tuts was a case reserved by Monahan, C. J., from the Spring Assizes of the county of Limerick. The case stated that a civil-bill had been brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant, to recover a sum of 4. 7s. 3d., alleged to be due for poor-rate out of premises in the city of Limerick. That the premises in question were stores, which had formerly been in the possession of a tenant of the defendant ; but they had been surÂÂrendered to the defendant some time previous to the striking of the rate which, by the civil-bill, was sought to be recovered. That the premises continued to be and were untenanted at the time of the striking of the rate. That the defendant made no use of them whatsoever, but was anxious to obtain a new tenant. On these facts the Assistant-Barrister held that the rate was valid, and gave a decree for the plaintiffs, which decree was affirmed by Monahan, C. J., on appeal; but he entertaining doubts on the matter, reserved the case for the opinion of the Twelve Judges. J. D. Fitzgerald appeared on behalf of the Poor-law Guardians. Assuming that the premises were untenanted, and in no way used at the time the rate was struck, the objection here made could only be raised on an appeal to the Quarter Sessions ; it is no defence to an action for the rate : Churchwardens of Birmingham v. Shaw (a); Fawcett v. Fowlis (b); Marshall v. Pitman (c). (a) 10 Q. B. 868. (b-) 7 B. & C. 394. (c) 9 Bing. 595 ; S. C., 2 M. & Sc. 745. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 631 The case of The Guardians of the North Dublin Union v. E. T. 1852. n'ueesBench Q Scott (a), which will be relied on as governing the present case, LIMERICK is not a sound decision, and ought to be overruled.-[At this stage GUARDIANS it was intimated by some of the Judges that, in the way this case v. came before them, they had- but the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT