The King (Sheehan) v Justices of The County of Waterford

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: K. B. Div.
• Judgment Date: 27 October 1913
• Court: King's Bench Division (Ireland)
• Date: 27 October 1913

The King (Sheehan)

and

Justices of the County of Waterford (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 — Summary conviction — Certiorari — Omission in summons — Defect cured — County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 56), s. 76 — Statute — Construction — How far word “wilfully” governs subsequent words — Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. c. 106), s. 74.

Held, that the word “wilfully” governs the words “have in his possession,” and that a conviction on a summons charging the defendant with having in his possession unclean salmon, but omitting the word “wilfully,” was bad.

But held, that as it appeared that the justices had in fact determined on the hearing of the summons that the defendant had the salmon wilfully in his possession, and the Court being of opinion that the omission of the word “wilfully” from the summons did not mislead or prejudice the defendant or affect the merits of the case, the Court, in obedience to s. 76 of 40 & 41 Vict. c. 56, would refuse, on certiorari, to quash the conviction.

The King (U. D. C. Athy) v. Justices of Kildare ([1912] 2 I. R. 64), and The King (Johnston) v. Justices of Belfast (post, p. 181, note), applied.

Certiorari.

The prosecutor herein was defendant in two summonses in which the conservators, Waterford District, by J. H. Jones, were complainants. One of these summonses was as follows:— “Whereas a complaint has been made to me that you the defendant did at Dungarvan, in the county of Waterford, on the 25th day of February, 1913, have in your possession two unclean salmon contrary to the statute in such case made and provided (2), This is to command you,” &c.

The other summons was in a similar form, except that the date mentioned was the 26th February, 1913.

The summonses were heard before the justices at petty sessions, and the defendant was convicted on both charges. The convictions in each case set out the complaint as in the summons, and ordered as follows:— “Defendant is convicted of the said offence and ordered to pay for fine the sum of £1 and for costs the sum of 1s. 6d. forthwith, and in default of payment,” &c.

The prosecutor herein obtained a conditional order for a writ of certiorari to quash each of the convictions on the ground (inter alia) that it was bad on its face, as the word “wilfully”...