THE QUEEN, at the Relation of ROBERT HENRY KINAHAN, v The Right Honorable the LORD MAYOR of the City of Dublin

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 18 November 1841
• Date: 18 November 1841
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench.

THE QUEEN, at the Relation of ROBERT HENRY KINAHAN,

and

The Right Honorable the LORD MAYOR of the City of Dublin.

Lovegrove v. Bethel 1 Blk. R. 668.

Rex v. HayENR 4 Burr. 2295.

AnonymousENR 5 Mod. 374.

Perkins v. WoolastonENR 1 Salk. 321.

Miller v. NewbaldENR 1 East, 662.

Meriton v. StevensENR Willes, 271.

supersedeas; Sampson v. BrowneENR 2 East, 439.

Benwell v. BlackENR 3 T. R. 643.

Henslow v. Bishop of Sarum Dyer, 76, 6.

Rex v. Wheeler Temp. Hardw. 91.

Somerville v. WhiteENR 5 East, 145.

Ruding v. NewelENR 2 Str. 983.

Rex v. Corporation of Wost LoeENR 8 Burr, 1386.

Rex v. Smith 1 Jebb & S. 632.

Rex v. West LoeENR 3 Burr. 1386.

Buxkley v. PalmerENR 2 Salk. 430.

Regina v. GambleENR 3 P. & Dav. 123.

Rex v. BaldwinENR 3 P. & Dav. 124.

Sims v. Thomas Longf. & T. 24.

Rex v. Mayor of YorkENR 5 T. R. 76.

Snooke v. Mattock 6 N. & Man. 783.

Rex v. Mayor of GrampoundENR 6 T. R. 301.

Rex v. Corporation of BridgewaterENR 3 Doug. 379.

The Dean and Chapter of Dublin v. DowgattENR 1 P. Wms. 349, 351.

mandamus; Rex v. LookupENR 3 Burr. 1901.

Foot v. ProwseENR 2 Str. 697.

Clerk v. WithersENR 1 Salk. 323.

Parkins v. WoolastonENR 6 Mod. 130.

Capron v. ArcherENR 1 Burr. 341.

Dudley v. Stokes 2 W. Bl. 1183.

Jacques v. NixonENR 1 T. R. 279.

Taswell v. StoneENR 4 Burr. 2454.

Benwell v. BlackENR 3 T. R. 643.

Cristie v. v. RichardsonENR 3 T. R. 78.

Perry v. ChampbellENR 3 T. R. 390.

Aarons v. WilliamsENR 2 Bing. 304; S. C. 9 Moo. 563.

Somerville v. WhiteENR 5 East, 145.

AnonymousENR 5 Mod. 374.

Ruding v. NewelENR 2 Str. 983.

Smith v. NicholsonENR 2 Str. 1186.

Marston v. Halls 2 M. & Welsb. 60.

CASES AT LAW. •147 1841. ueen's Bench. THE QUEEN, at the Relation of ROBERT HENRY KINAHAN, v. The Right Honorable the LORD MAYOR of the City of Dublin. June 5. Nov. 1S. in the room of Henry Farran Darley, against whom the Court had pro- of R. H. Kinahan, Esq., and George Studdert, Esq. The former stated' formation inin nounced - MANDAMUS. This was a motion to shew cause against a conditional A. and B. were order, which had been obtained on a former day, for a mandamus to the Lord Mayor, commanding him to convene a meeting to elect a Treasurer The conditional order had been obtained on two affidavits, viz., that I d d judgment of ouster last Easter Term. pro the s oufb:l bhi Ben: ed B. en: i A. heo faevDcitne g; a brought n a- teTharenedaoisdfftuarctee for officee ofooff tay that at the election in 1836, William Smith was declared duly elected; the nature of a quo warrants, that H. F. Darley instituted proceedings against him, upon the ground against him, that he had the greater number of votes-the votes of some Divisional and obtained judgment of Justices which were tendered for him having been improperly rejected, ouster against him, and was and that upon an information in the nature of a quo warranto against subsequently Smith, judgment of ouster was pronounced against Smith, and said admitted into said office by Darley subsequently admitted to said office by virtue of a writ of man- virtue of a writ dames; that R. H. Kinahan obtained leave to file a bill in the nature of of mandamus. C., a third a quo warranto against Darley for usurpation of said office, upon the party, then filed an mati inforst ground that all the Divisional Justices did not attend said election, and on against although within summons, were not duly summoned, &c., and that judg- B. for usurpa tion of said of ment of ouster was pronounced upon that information against Darley, and flee, upon the had been duly signed; that in consequence of the judgment against Smith ground that B.'s election and Darley, there was no. person in possession of the office, properly was void, some of e elector responsible to the public ; and that the writ of error brought by Darley whoth were withs - upon the judgment pronounced against him was brought for the purpose in summons not having of delay. Mr. Studdert stated, in his affidavit, that he was one of the been summon- ed. to the meet- Divisional Justices before and at the time of the election of 1836, and ing at which he he never did, as such Justice, attend any meeting of the Board of was elected, Ma gistrates of the Cy o te City of Dublin : and that he was not at attended said the of Count any period of the year 1836 convened or called by any notice or public ad- meeting, and judgment of vertisement from the Lord Mayor, or from any other person whatsoever, ouster was pro- nouncedby this to attend a meeting of the said Board of Magistrates for the purpose of Court against B. upon this information. B. brought a writ of error to reverse this judgment, and C. applied to this Court for...