The King (at the prosecution of John Jackson) v The County Council of The County of Cork

CourtKing's Bench Division (Ireland)
Judgment Date24 February 1910
Date24 February 1910



K. B. Div.

Practice — Mandamus — Civil proceedings on Crown side —— Amendment —

Hatton v. HarrisELR [1892] A. C. 547.

Local Government Board for Ireland v. The KingELR [1903] A. C. 402.

R. v Licensing Justices of Pirehill North, StaffordshireELR 14 Q. B. D. 13.

R. v. Lords and Stewards of Manor of Water Eaton 2 Smith, 54.

The King (Hewson) v. Wicklow County CouncilIR [1908] 2 I. R. 101.

The King v. Church Trustees of St. Pancras 6 A. & E. 314.

The King v. Mayor, &c., of StaffordENR 4 T. R. 689.

The Local Government Board for Ireland v. The KingELR [1903] A. C. 405.

The Queen (L. G. B.) v. Cheshunt Local BoardUNK [1884] W. N. 78.

The Queen v. Aldermen and Lord Mayor of London 13 Q. B. 1.

The Queen v. Aldermen, &., of Newbury 1 Q. B. 751.

The Queen v. Conyers 8 Q. B. 981.

The Queen v. Derbyshire, Staffordshire, and Worcestershire Junction RailwayUNK 2 C. L. R. 1653.

The Queen v. East Lancashire Railway Co. 9 Q. B. 980.

The Queen v. Ellis 2 Dowl. (N.S.), 374.

The Queen v. London & South-Western Railway Co. 1 Q. B. 558.

The Queen v. Mayor, Aldermen, and Councillors of Poole 1 Q. B. 616.

The Queen v. Saddlers' CompanyENR 10 H. L. C. 404.

The Queen v. South-Eastern RailwayENR 4 H. L. C. 471.

The Queen v. Tithe Commissioners for England and Wales 14 Q. B. 459.

206 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1911. K. B. Div. THE KING (AT THE PROSECUTION OF JOHN JACKSON) 1910. Feb. 16, 17, 18, 24. CORK (1). Practice—Mandamus--Civil proceedings on Crown side—Variation between writ and order—Amendment—Order XXVIII., Br. 6, 12 ; Order LXXXIV., R. 253. Where the command in a writ of mandamus varies from that contained in the order allowing the issue of such writ, it is a matter of course to quash the writ so varying. There is no jurisdiction to amend a writ of mandamus that varies as aforeÂsaid, unless the order giving leave to issue it is similarly amended either prior to or contemporaneously with the amendment of the writ. Where a mandamus commands several things, the prosecutor must show that he is entitled to enforce every one of such commands ; and, if he fails to establish a right to enforce any one of such commands, a peremptory mandamus cannot go. MOTION on behalf of the Crown for an order that judgment be entered for the prosecutor on the findings in the trial of the writ of mandamus herein, and that a peremptory writ of mandamus be awarded in that behalf. The prosecutor, John Jackson, Inspector of Factories, on April 22nd, 1908, obtained a conditional order for mandamus "directed to the County Council of the county of Cork, commandÂing them, according to their duty and statutory authority as having the general management and control of the dock, wharf, and quay, at Courtmacsherry, to put in force the regulations contained in Part I of the Regulations dated the 24th day of October, 1904, made by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the Factory and Workshop Act, viz. :— " (1.) To provide secure fencing for the breaks, dangerous corners, and other dangerous parts of edges of the dook, wharf, (1) Before PALLES, C.B., GIBSON and BOYD, JJ. Voc. II.] KING'S BENCH DIVISION. 207 or quay of Courtmacsherry, so that the height of the fence K. B. Div. shall be in no place less than 2 feet 6 inches, and the fencing 910. shall be maintained in good condition ready for use. THE KING (JACKSON; "(2.) To provide, for the rescue from drowning of persons 2'. CORK employed, a reasonably adequate supply of life-saving appliances, n p CO, vOTINCI I.. to be kept in readiness on the wharf or quay at Courtmacsherry ; and to provide means, at or near the surface of the water, for enabling a person immersed to support himself or escape from the water. " (3.) To provide efficient lighting for the dangerous parts of the regular road or way over the dock, wharf, or quay at Courtmacsherry, forming the approach from the nearest highway." •This conditional order was made absolute, and the writ issued, its mandatory part following the terms of the order giving leave to issue, as set out above. The County Council filed an answer to the writ, and the trial of the action came on before Lord O'Brien, L.C.J., and a special jury of the city of Dublin, on April 19, 23, 24, and 26, 1910. At the trial, it transpired that there was no regulation under the Factory Act, 1901, requiring the dangerous parts of the regular road or way, over a dock, wharf, or quay, " forming the approach from the nearest highway," to be efficiently lighted, as was sought to be enforced in paragraph (3) of the absolute order. The regulation relied on by the prosecution was ReguÂlation 3 of Part I of the Regulations, No. 1617, dated October 24th, 1904, made by the Secretary of State, in pursuance of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, and was in fact in the following terms : " All places in which persons employed are employed at night, and any dangerous parts of the regular road or way over a dock, wharf, or quay, forming the approach to any such place from the nearest highway, shall be efficiently lighted." The defendants' counsel early in the trial objected to the admission of any evidence of necessity for lighting on the ground that there was no such duty east on the defendants as was set forth in the terms of the writ; and, at the conclusion of the case Q2 208 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1911. K. B. Div. for the prosecutor, they asked for a direction on the ground that 1910. where a writ of mandamus was bad in part it was bad in toto. T az Kix°...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • The King (Courtney) v Edward Emerson, A Justice of The Peace Foe The County Op The City of Belfast
    • Ireland
    • King's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 26 November 1912 Madden's EstateIR [1902] 1 I. R. 63. Secretary of War v. BoothIR [1901] 2 I. R. 692. The King (Jackson) v. County Council of CorkIR [1911] 2 I. R. 206. The King (Postmaster-General)v. Great Northern Railway Co.IR [1908] 2 I. R. 32. The King (Rea) V. Davison Supra, p. 342. The King v. Her......
  • R (Butler) v Navan UDC
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court (Irish Free State)
    • 31 March 1926
    ...and Murnaghan JJ. (1) 18 A. C. 241. (2) 44 L. J. Q. B. 85. (3) [1920] 1 K. B. 155. (4) [1905] 1 Ch. D. 336. (5) 9 Q. B. D. 494. (6) [1911] 2 I. R. 206. (1) 5 N. I. J. R. (1) 18 L. R. Ir. 373, at p. 378. ...

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