The King (Martin) v Mahony

JurisdictionIreland
CourtKing's Bench Division (Ireland)
Judgment Date30 June 1910
Date30 June 1910

K. B. Div.

Before LORD O'BRIEN, L.C.J., PALLES, C.B., and GIBSON, MADDEN, BOYD, KENNY, WRIGHT, and DODD, JJ.

THE KING (MARTIN)
and

MAHONY

Ashcroft v. BourneENR 3 B. & Ad. 684.

Bailey's Case Ibid., p. 607

Baker's Case Ibid., p. 219.

Barber v. Nottingham and Grantham Railway Co. 33 L. J. (N.S.) C. P. 193.

Barton v. Bricknell 13 Q. B. 393.

Basébé v. MathewsELR L. R. 2 C. P. 684.

Branwell v. PennickENR 7 B. & C. 536.

Brisby's Case 1 Den C. C. 416.

Brittain v. Kinnaird 1 Br. & Bing. 432.

Bunbury v. FullerENR 9 Ex. 111.

Bunbury v. FullerENR 9 Ex. 140.

Bunbury v. FullerENR 9 Ex. at p. 140.

Cave v. MountainUNK 1 M. & G. 257.

Christie v. Unwin 11 A. & E. 373.

Crepps v. Durden 1 Sm. L. C., 11th ed., at p. 651.

Day v. King 5 A. & E. 359.

Denaby v. Manchester Railway Company 3 N. & M. Ry. C. 426.

Dunn's Case 12 A. & E. 599.

Ex parle Hopwood 15 Q. B. 121.

Ex parte BakerENR 7 E. & B. 697.

Ex parte Hopwood 15 Q. B. 121.

Ex parte JohnsonENR 3 B. & S., at p. 952.

Ex parte WakeELR 11 Q. B. D. 291, at p. 298.

Ex parte wakeELR 11 Q. B. D. 291, at p. 298.

Ex parte WakeELR 11 Q. B. D. 291.

Exparte WakeELR 11 Q. B. D. 289.

Flannagan's CaseENR 8 E. & B. 451.

Flannagan's CaseENR 8 E. & B., at p. 455.

Geswood's caseENR 2 E. & B., at p. 954.

Gray v. CooksonENR 16 East, 13.

Hardy v. RyleENR 9 B. & C. 603.

Heaphy's CaseUNK 22 L. R. Ir. 500.

Heaphy's CaseUNK 22 L. R. Ir. at p. 515.

Hemphill v. FrazerUNK 10 L. R. Ir. 87.

Huxley's CaseELR 17 Q. B. D., at p. 378.

In Colonial Bank of Australia v. WillanELR L. R. 5 P. C. 417.

In re AlisonENR 10 Ex. 561.

In re AuthersELR 22 Q. B. D. 345.

In re BaileyENR 3 E. & B. 607.

In re BakerENR 2 H. & N. 219.

In re BlewittUNK 14 L. T. (N. S.) 598.

In re HeaphyUNK 22 L. R. Ir., pp. 512-514.

In re Heaphy Ibid. 500.

In re RussellUNK 22 L. R. Ir. 487.

In re SullivanUNK 22 L. R. Ir. 98.

In re ThompsonENR 6 H. & N. 193.

In re v. SullivanUNK 22 L. R. Ir. 98.

Kydd's CaseELR [1908] A. C., at p. 330.

Kydd's CaseELR [1908] A. C., at p. 332

Lalor's CaseUNKUNK 7 Ir. C. L. R. 438; 8 Ir. C. L. R. 115.

Lancaster v. GreavesENR 9 B. & C. 628.

Lawrenson v. HillUNK 10 Ir. C. L. R., at p. 185.

Lawrenson v. Hill 10 Ir. C. L. R.

Lindsay v. Leigh 11 Q. B. 455.

Lort v. HuttonUNK 45 L. J. (M. C.) 95.

Lowther v. RadnorENR 8 East, 113.

Maconchy v. TrowerIR [1894] 2 Ir. 663.

Mould v. Williams 5 Q. B. 469.

Newman v. Bendyshe 10 A. & E. 11

O'Brennan's CaseUNK 3 Ir. C. L. R. 589.

Osgood v. NelsonENR 10 B. & S. 119.

Oswood v. NelsonENR 10 B. & S. 159.

Oswood v. NelsonENR 10 B. & S., at p. 159.

Pease v. ChaytorENR 3 B. & S. 641.

Pease v. ChaytorENR 3 B. & S., at p. 632.

Pease v. ChaytorENR 3 B. & S., pp. 644, 639.

Powell v. The Kempton Park Racecourse Company [1899] App. Cas. 143.

Queen v. Bolton 1 Q. B. 66.

R v. JukesENR 8 T. R., at pp. 540, 541.

R. v. BadgerENR 6 E. & B., at p. 171.

R. v. Bolton 1. Q. B. 66.

R. v. BradleyUNK 70 L. T. (N. S.) 379.

R. v. CheshireENR 5 B. & Ad., at p. 442.

R. v. EatonENR 2 T. R. 285.

R. v. JukesENR 8 T. R. 536.

R. v. KelletENR 4 Burr. 2064.

R. v. ListonENR 5 T. R., at p. 341.

R. v. LloydENR 2 Str., at p. 999.

R. v. MoreleyENR 2 Burr. 1040.

R. v. SmithENR 5 M. & S. 133.

R. v. Smith T. R. 588.

R. v. VipontENR 2 Burr. 1163.

R. v. WilkinsELR [1907] 2 K. B. 380.

R. v. WoodcockENR 7 East, 146.

Re BlakemoreENR 2 Den. C. C. 420.

Re Clarke 2 Q. B. 624.

Re ThompsonENR 6 H. & N., at p. 200.

Reg v. Grant 14 Q. B., at p. 62

Reg v. Hartpury 8 Q. B. 566.

Reg v. MarshamELR [1892] 1 Q. B., pp. 375, 378.

Reg v. MorrisUNKELR 26 T. L. R. 419; S. C. [1910] 2 K. B., p. 192.

Reg. v. BadgerENR 6 E. & B. 137.

Reg. v. BadgerENR 6 E. & B., at p. 167.

Reg. v. BadgerENR 6 E. & B., at pp. 167, 168.

Reg. v. BlaneyIR [1901] 2 I. R., at pp. 103, 104.

Reg. v. Boultbee 4 A. & E. 498.

Reg. v. BrownENR 7 E. & B. 757.

Reg. v. Buckinghamshire 3 Q. B. 800.

Reg. v. Chadwick 11 Q. B. 205.

Reg. v. Cork JusticesIR [1898] 2. I. R. 694.

Reg. v. CothamELR [1898] 1 Q. B. at p. 806.

Reg. v. DaymanENR 7 E. & B., pp. 678, 679.

Reg. v. FarmerELR [1892] 1 Q. B. 637.

Reg. v. Leicestershire 15 Q. B. 671.

Reg. v. Lundie 31 L. J. (N. S.), M. C. at p. 160.

Reg. v. MarshamELR [1892] 1 Q. B. 378.

Reg. v. Martin 2 Q. B. 1037.

Reg. V. RawsonELR [1909] 2 K. B. 748.

Reg. v. RussellENR 10 B. & S., at p. 117.

Reg. v. RussellENR 10 B. & S., pp. 111, 117.

Reg. v. St. OlaveENR 8 E. & B. 529.

Reg. v. St. Olaves 8 E. &. B., at p. 533.

Reg. v. SurreyELR L. R. 5 Q. B. 466.

Reg. v. WoodENR 5 E. & B. 49.

Reg. v. WoodENR 5 E. & B., at p. 56.

Rex v. Cork JusticesIR [1905] 2 I. R. 309.

Rex v. Cork JusticesIR [1907] 2 I. R. 5.

Rex v. Hartley Cald. 175.

Rex v. WoodhouseELR [1906] 2 K. B. 501, at pp. 515, 516, 537.

Rex. v. ThomasENR 7 E. & B. 399.

Rex. v. WoodhouseELR [1906] 2 K. B. 501.

Rudyard's CaseENR 2 Vent. 22.

Slattery's Case 3 App. C. 1155.

St. George's Vestry v. SparrowUNK 33 L. J. M. C. 118.

Stewart v. GromettENR 7 C. B. (N. S.) 191.

Sullivan's Case 22 L. R. at p. 136

TAnner's Case Judgments of Superior Courts, Ireland, 340.

The Colonial Bank of Australasia v. WillanELR L. R. 5 P. C. 417.

The King (Burke) v. Justices of GalwayIR [1906] 2 I. R. 446.

The King (Roe) v. Justices of RoscommonIR [1905] 2 I. R. 101, 112.

The King (Wexford County Council) v. Local Government Board for IrelandUNK 35 I. T. L. R. 87; 1 New Ir. Jur. 149.

The King v. ClarkeENR 8 T. R. 222.

The King v. Davis Ibid. 177.

The King v. LovetENR 7 T. R. 152.

The King v. Murray 3 Law Rec. (N. S.) 190, 191.

The King v. PersseENR 9 East, 385.

The King v. PlowrightENR 3 Mod. 95.

The King v. PlowrightENR 3 Mod. pp. 94-5, Case 53.

The King v. ReasonENR 6 T. R. 375.

The King v. SmithENR 8 T. R. 588.

The King v. ThopsonENR 2 T. R. 18.

The King v. Wilson 1 A. & E. 627.

The Marquis of Devonshire 4 A. & E. 698.

The Queen (Feehan) v. The Justices of the Queen's CountyUNK 10 L. R. Ir. 294.

The Queen (M'Erlane) v. Justices of Co. Antrim 1 New Ir. Jur. Rep. 209.

The Queen v. Allen and others Ibid. 98.

The Queen v. BoltonELR L. R. 2 Q. B. 114.

The Queen v. ChantrellELR L. R. 10 Q. B. 587.

The Queen v. Hamilton and Baker 6 Ir. Jur. (N. S.) 154.

The Queen v. Inhabitants of Abergele 8 A. & E. 394.

The Queen v. M'NaghtenINTL 9 I. L. R. 93.

The Queen v. O'BrennanUNK 3 I. C. L. R. 589.

The Queen v. SullivanUNK 22 L. R. Ir., p. 504, note.

The Queen v. Sullivan Ibid. 504, note

The Queen v. The Justices of LondonderryUNK 28 L. R. Ir. 440.

The Queen v. WhitfieldELR 15 Q. B. D. 122, at p. 144.

Thompson v. Ingham 14 Q. B. 710.

Thompson v. Ingham 14 Q. B., at p. 718.

Toppin v. ClemanIR [1910] 2 I. R. 200.

Usill v. HalesELR 3 C. P. D., at p. 324.

Vesci's CaseIR [1908] 2 Ir., at p. 305.

Walsall Case 4 App. C., at p. 39.

Walsall CaseELR 4 App. Cas. 30.

Walsall CaseELR 4 App. Cas., 39, 40.

Welch v. NashENR 8 East, 394.

White v. SteeleENR 12 C. B. (N. S.) 383.

Willan's CaseELR L. R. 5 P. C. 417.

Wise's CaseELR [1902] 1 K. B. 167.

Justices — Jurisdiction — Conviction — Insufficiency of evidence — Certiorari — Power of Superior Court to examine evidence.

Von. LI.) KING'S BENCH DIVISION. 695 THE KING (MARTIN) v. MAHONY (1). Justices—Jurisdiction—Conviction—Insufficiency of evidence—Certiorari Power of Superior Court to examine evidence. K B. Div. M. was convicted by a Dublin Divisional Magistrate of an offence under 1910. sections 1 and 3 of the Betting House Act, 1853, on evidence which, if April 19, 20, examinable, was insufficient to support the conviction. The prosecution was 21, 22. June 30. under the Dublin Summary Procedure Acts, 1 Vict. c. 25, and 5 Vict. c. 24, which prescribe a general form of conviction, not stating or incorporating the evidence. M. having applied to quash the conviction on certiorari on the ground of insufficiency of evidence : Held, by the Court, that the conviction, being regular and following the statutory form, could not be quashed on such ground, as the evidence could not be examined. Held, also, by Lord O'Brien, L.C.J., and Gibson, Madden, Boyd, Kenny, Wright, and Dodd, JJ. (Palles, C. B., dissenting), that the same principle applied to prosecutions under the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, and thatneither the column in the Statutory order book directing witnesses' names to be stated, nor sect. 20, sub-s. 4, of that statute, which requires, on request, a note of the material part of the evidence given to be taken and signed by the Justice, incorporated the evidence, or enabled the Court to examine it on certiorari. Held, by Lord O'Brien, L.C.J., and Gibson, Madden, Boyd, Kenny, and Wright, JJ., that the mere absence of evidence to warrant a conviction did not oust jurisdiction, but amounted merely to error as distinguished from want of jurisdiction. The reasoning on this point in The Queen v. Sullivan (22 L.R. Ir. 504, note), preferred to that in In re Sullivan (Ibid. 98), and In re Heaphy (Ibid. 500). Brittain v. Kinnaird (1 Br. & B. 432), and The Queen v. Bolton (1 Q.B. 66), discussed and applied. In re Bailey (3 E. & B. 607) and In re Baker (2 & N. 219) distinguished. Held, by Palles, C.B., that the note in writing of the evidence signed by a Justice under section 20, sub-sect. 4, of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, is examinable by the King's Bench Division on certiorari, and if it does not disclose sufficient evidence of guilt, a conviction founded on it is liable to be quashed. In re Sullivan and In re Heaphy explained. Per Dodd, J.—Where the Legislature does not require the evidence to be stated, whether the statute takes away, or does not take away, certiorari ; and where there is nothing in the statutes which regulate the procedure, either by express provision or by necessary intendment, to make the depositions or a note of the evidence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 cases
  • O'Neill (The State) v Shannon
    • Ireland
    • High Court (Irish Free State)
    • 1 January 1932
    ...defendant, and therefore the High Court could consider the evidence and determine whether the order was right. R. (Martin) v. MahonyIR, [1910] 2 I.R. 695, distinguished as being only applicable in cases where there has been a decision on the legal merits. Held further that the variance betw......
  • State (Keegan & Lysaght) v Stardust Victims Compensation Tribunal
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1987
    ...... - Tribunal established to award compensation to victims of fire - Claimant and his wife seeking compensation for nervous shock - Both claims arising out of similar circumstances - Tribunal ... Dicta of Lord O'Brien L.C.J. in The King (Martin) v. Mahony [1910] 2 I.R. 695 at p. 707 and of Henchy J. in The State (Abenglen Properties) v. ......
  • R (Corporation of Belfast) rton
    • Ireland
    • King's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 1 January 1919
    ...to report, so as that on satisfactory proof of his position he may avoid the liability of proceedings being taken against him. (1) [1910] 2 I. R. 695. (1) [1917] 2 I. R. (1) See note, ante, p. 133. (2) (1917) 2 Ir. R. 7. K. B. D., The King (Romney) and Lupton and Burton Absentee without lea......
  • Hughes (The State) v Lennon and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court (Irish Free State)
    • 20 July 1935
    ...order was invalid as being a conviction of all the offences charged, some of which were charged alternatively.) R. (Martin) v. MahonyIR [1910] 2 I. R. 695, R. (Boylan) v. Londonderry JJ.IR [1912] 2 I. R. 374; and Ex parte Stephens, Judgments of the Supreme Courts in Ireland in cases under t......
  • 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