The King (Kate Donoghue and Others) v The Justices of County Cork

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date19 January 1910
Date19 January 1910
CourtKing's Bench Division (Ireland)
The King (Kate Donoghue and Others)
and
The Justices of County Cork (1).

K. B. Div.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1910.

Justices — Bias — Personal ill-will towards defendants — Securities for good behaviour — Certiorari — Costs.

Summonses were issued on the complaint of the District Inspector, Royal Irish Constabulary, against three persons named D., members of the same family, as defendants, charging them with obstructing the police, and calling on them to show cause why they should not enter into recognizances to be of good behaviour. The summonses were heard before two Justices. The defendants objected to one of the Justices, B., adjudicating on the ground that a bad feeling existed between him and them. B. insisted on adjudicating; and orders were made requiring the defendants to enter into recognizances to be of good behaviour. A conditional order for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Justices was obtained by the defendants, grounded on affidavits made by them alleging that bad feeling had for years existed between the D. family and B., and that on the day after the orders had been made by the Justices, B. was overheard to say that he would not leave any member of the D. family in the district. Cause against making the conditional order absolute was shown on behalf of the Crown, but no cause was shown by B. individually, and he did not deny the allegations in the defendants' affidavit.

Held, that the conditional order for a writ of certiorari should be made absolute.

Held, also, that B. should pay the costs of the defendants in the certiorari proceedings.

Certiorari.

A summons was issued on the complaint of the District Inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary against Mrs. Kate Donoghue, one of the prosecutors herein, complaining that she did unlawfully make use of abusive and threatening language towards one Sergeant Robert Anderson while in the execution of his duty as a constable, and did seriously obstruct and hamper him in the discharge of such duty, and requiring her to appear as defendant at Roscarbery Petty Sessions, to show cause why she should not be bound over to keep the peace and be of good

behaviour. Summonses of a similar nature were issued against John Donoghue and Ellen Donoghue, the other prosecutors herein, who were the son and daughter of Mrs. Kate Donoghue.

The summonses came on for hearing on the 30th June, 1909, before two Justices, Mr. Arthur Deane (Chairman) and Mr. Edward Barry. Evidence was given by Sergeant Anderson that the defendants had used abusive language to him, and had obstructed him in the discharge of his duty, and prevented him supervising the licensed premises of the defendant, Kate Donoghue. Orders were made by the Justices requiring Kate Donoghue to enter into a recognizance in the sum of £10, with two sureties in the sum of £5 each, to be of good behaviour towards all His Majesty's subjects, and especially towards Sergeant Anderson, requiring John Donoghue to enter into a recognizance in the sum of £5, with two sureties in the sum of £2 10s. each, to be of like good behaviour, and requiring Ellen Donoghue to enter into a like recognizance to be of like good behaviour.

The prosecutors obtained a conditional order for a writ of certiorari to bring up and quash these three orders on the ground (inter alia)— “That one of the magistrates, to wit, Edward Barry, who sat, heard, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • O'Callaghan and Others v Judge Alan Mahan and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • October 10, 2006
    ...138 F (2D) 650 O'NEILL v BEAUMONT HOSPITAL BOARD 1990 ILRM 419 LOCABAIL v BAYFIELD PROPERTIES LTD 2000 1 AER 65 R (DONOGHUE) v CORK JJ 1910 2 IR 271 DINEEN v DELAP 1994 2 IR 228 MCDONALD v BRADY 2001 3 IR 589 DELANEY JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 2001 O'NEILL v BEAUMONT HOSPITA......
  • De Souza Lionel Jerome v Attorney General
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • November 25, 1992
    ...as would give rise to a challenge to the favour, that the judge or justice would have a bias. In R (Donoghue) v Justices of County Cork [1910] 2 IR 271 Lord O`Brien LCJ dissented from the view of Lord Esher in Eckersley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Board [1894] 2 QB 667[1891] All ER Rep 1130 ......
  • Re Singh Kalpanath
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • March 17, 1992
    ...R v The County Court Judge & the Justices of the Peace for the County of Clare [1918] 2 IR 116 (refd) R v The Justices of County Cork [1910] 2 IR 271 (refd) Steeples v Derbyshire County Council [1985] 1 WLR 256; [1984] 3 All ER 468 (folld) Tahmindjis v Brown (1985) 60 ALR 120 (refd) Tan Boo......
  • Martin v Coroner for the County of Dublin (Geraghty)
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • October 2, 2009
    ...8.7.2009 2009 IEHC 346 BULA LTD & ORS v TARA MINES & ORS (NO 6) 2000 4 IR 412 2000/3/925 R (DONOGHUE & ORS) v JUSTICES OF COUNTY CORK 1910 2 IR 271 R (HARRINGTON) v JUSTICES OF COUNTY CLARE 1918 2 IR 116 R v ABINGDON JUSTICES 1964 108 SJ 840 1964 CRIM LR 43 MCAULEY v KEATING & ORS 1998 4 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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