The King (Mulholland) v The Justices of Monaghan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: K. B. Div.
• Judgment Date: 06 June 1913
• Court: King's Bench Division (Ireland)
• Date: 06 June 1913

The King (Mulholland)

and

The Justices of Monaghan (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.

1914.

Justices — Order to find sureties for the peace and good behaviour — Bona fide question of title — Showing jurisdiction on face of order.

The fact that threats, or an assault, which would authorize justices in requiring sureties for the peace and good behaviour, arose by reason of a bona fide dispute as to title, does not oust the jurisdiction of the justices to require such sureties.

An order of justices, setting out a complaint that defendant used threatening language to complainant, thereby putting him in fear and dread of the defendant, and ordering the defendant to enter into recognizances to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, sufficiently shows on its face jurisdiction to make such order.

The King (Boylan) v. Justices of Londonderry ([1912] 2 I. R. 374) explained.

Certiorari.

The prosecutor was defendant in a summons, in which Michael Monaghan was complainant. The material portion of the summons was as follows:—

“Whereas a complaint has been made to me that you, the said defendant, on the 11th day of March, 1913, at Ballintra, in said county, did use threatening language to complainant, thereby putting him in fear and dread of you This is to command you to appear …. and to show cause why you should not be bound to keep the peace, and be of good behaviour.”

The summons was heard by the justices at petty sessions. From the evidence given, it appeared that the defendant had a right-of-way over the lands of the complainant; that a dispute arose with reference to the repairing by the complainant of a wall on his lands adjoining this way, the defendant alleging that the repairs would interfere with the free passage along the way; and that on the day mentioned in the summons the defendant threw

some of the stones from the wall into the complainant's field, and used the threatening language complained of. The complainant swore that he was in fear and dread of his life from the defendant.

The defendant's solicitor contended that the jurisdiction of the justices was ousted, inasmuch as the threats arose out of a bona fide dispute as to a question of title. The complainant's solicitor contended that the jurisdiction to bind to the peace for threatening language was not ousted by the fact that a...