The Queen At The Relation of Robert Kinahan v Henry F. Darley

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 06 May 1841
• Date: 06 May 1841
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench.

The QUEEN at the relation of ROBERT KINAHAN

and

HENRY F. DARLEY.

Regina v. Smith 1 Jebb & S. 164, 468, 621.

Regina v. Darley 2 Jebb & S. 239; S. C. 2 Ir. Law Rep. 253.

Regina v. Hoyte 1 Jebb & S. 236.

Rex v. RichardsonENR 9 East, 469.

Rex v. O'Grady Greene's R. 33.

Rex v. HallENR 1 B. & C. 237; S. C. 2 Dowl. & R. 341.

Regina v. Smith 1 Jebb & S. 175.

Herson v. AglionbyENR 10 Mod. 327.

Chitty v. DendyENR 4 New. & M. 842.; S. C. 3 Ad. & E. 319.

Rex v. LeighENR 4 Burr. 2146.

Rex v. ClarkeENR 2 East, 83.

AnonymousENR 12 Mod. 225.

Rex v. Trinity HouseENR 1 Sid. 86.

Regina v. Smith 1 Jebb & S. 635.

Lewis v. ParkesENR 3 Mees. & W. 133.

Rex v. M'KayENR 4 B. & C. 351; S. C. 6 Dowl. & R. 432.

Dawes v. Papworth Willis, 408.

Weatherell v. HowardENR 10 B. Moo. 504; S. C. 3 Bing. 135.

Woolley v. BriscoeENR 1 Str. 554.

Rex v. HillENR 4 B. & C. 426; S. C. 6 Dowl. & R. 593.

Rex v. LanghornUNK 6 Nev. & M. 203.

Rex v. NelmesENR 6 C. & P. 347.

Tronson v. Callan Batt. 488.

Calvert v. GordonENR 7 B. & C. 814

Edinburgh Railway Company v. HebblewhiteENR 6 Mees. & W. 707.

Rex v. RichardsonENR 9 East, 469.

Griffiths v. EylesENR 1 Bos. & P. 413.

Herson v. AglionbyENR 10 Mod. 326.

Chitty v. DendyUNKENR 4 Nev. & M. 842; S. C. 3 Ad. & E. 319; and 1 Har. & W. 169.

Grills v. MannellENR Willes, 378.

Heynick v. FosterENR 4 T. R. 701.

Rex v. AutridgeENR 8 T. R. 467.

Rex v. HallENR 1 B. & C. 237.

Chitty v. Dendy 4 New. & M. 845.

Bartholomew v. Ireland Andrew, 108; but see Ryley v. Parkhurst, 1 Wils. 219, where this case is cited by Serjeant Bootle, and it is said the demurer was overruled.

AnonymousENR 12 Mod. 225.

Rex v. Trinity HouseENR 1 Sid. 86.

Wood v. Butts Cro. Eliz. 260.

Gwinne v. PooleENR 2 lutw. 1560.

Talbot v. WoodhouseENR 2 Lutw. 1480.

Rex v. hughesENR 4 B. & C. 379.

Mayor of OrfordENRENR 2 Hen. Blk. 182; S. C. 1 Anst. 231; and 4 T. R. 437.

Rex v. ChetwyndENR 7 B. & C. 695; S. C. 1 M. & Ry. 534.

Rex v. HallENR 1 B. & C. 237.

Rex v. HighmoreUNK 1 D. & Ry. 443; S. C. B. & A. 771.

Chitty v. Dendy 3 A. & El. 319.

Rex v. JolthamENR 3 T. R. 557.

Rex v. WilliamsENR 1 Burr. 402.

Rex v. Langhorne 6 New. & M. 204.

Rex v. HillENR 4 B. & C. 436

334 CASES AT LAW. E. T. 1841. Queen' sBench. The QUEEN at the relation of ROBERT KINAHAN v. April 16, 23. HENRY F. DARLEY. May 6. To aninforma- INFORMATION in the nature of a quo warranto, for usurping the office tion in the na- of Treasurer of the city of Dublin.-The information in this case stated ture of a quo warranto the that the office of Treasurer of the county of the city of Dublin was a defendant must set forth fully public office of great trust and responsibility ; and that it was of the in his pleas the annual value of £415. 7s. 6d.; that upon the 22nd of March 1836 a title upon which he re- vacancy took place, and that since the 22nd of June 1839 the defendant lies against the bath exercised the office without legal warrant or authority, &c.,, and prayed right of the Crown. And process, &c. The information set forth that it was brought by the Coroner it is not suffi- at the relation of R. Kinahan pursuant to the statute in such case, &c. cient to state that it appear- To this information the defendant pleaded seven pleas. The first plea, ing to the Court that the office after admitting the vacancy, stated " that afterwards and within twenty-one was vacant, " days after the happening of the vacancy, to wit, &c., a meeting of the Board and the defend- ant rightfully " of Magistrates of the said county of the said city of Dublin, was held and lawfully entitled there- " at the Sessions Court in Green-street, in said city, between the hours of to, that a per- " twelve o'clock in the forenoon and two o'clock in the afternoon of the said emptory writ of mandamus was "last mentioned day, for the purpose of electing a fit and proper person as issued by the "a Treasurer of the public money of the said county of, &c., in the room Court, to ad- mit him, and " and place of the said William Darley, then deceased, pursuant to the that he Vas in "statute in such case made and provided." It then proceeded to state office under that writ. who voted for the respective candidates ; that Smith was declared duly Where a plea to such an elected, and the other circumstances connected with that meeting ; which information f af- are full stated in the reports of the former proceedings between these ter admitting the vacancy, parties. See Regina v. Smith (a); Regina v. Darley (b), and Regina v. stated in the Hoy to (c). That the defendant obtained a quo warranto against Smith, and information, set forth that had judgment of ouster thereon ; that the defendant subsequently obtained afterwards, &c., a meeting a peremptory mandamus to the Lord Mayor to convene a meeting to wa held at have him declared duly elected, and that that was accordingly done ; that &c.s , between the hours of 12 he then entered into the proper recognizance, and had since used and o'clock in the exercised this office, absque hoc, that the defendant bath usurped said forenoon and 2 o'clock in the office modo et forma. The plea concluded with a verification. afternoon of said day for the purpose of electing a fit and proper person to the office in the room of, &c., the deceased, pursuant to the statute in such case made and provided; Held-that a traverse which put in issue the fact that said meeting was held pursuant to the statute was a good traverse ; and did not traverse matter not alleged-the words pursuant to the statute referring as well to the holding of the meeting as to the election of the officer. Qucere-Whether in this case the defendant was entitled to plead several pleas Qucere-Whether, where a defendant pleads several pleas in a case in which he is only entitled to plead one plea, the objection can be raised by demurrer, or whether a motion to set them aside as irregular is not the proper course ? CASES AT LAW. 335 The second and third pleas were nearly similar, and contained nothing material to the argument. The fourth plea purported to be pleaded as a further plea by leave of the Court secundum formam statuti ; and proÂceeded to state " that it appearing to the Court that said office was vacant, "and that the defendant was rightfully and lawfully entitled thereto, a "certain writ of mandamus was issued by the said Court directed to the " Lord Mayor, and peremptorily commanding him to convene the Board of " Magistrates to meet at, Sze., and then and there declare the defendant to "be the Treasurer of said city, in order that he might enter into the "proper recognizance, &c.: and that in pursuance of said writ said meeting " was held, and was duly convened and held at the same time and place " in said writ specified, and for the purpose therein in that behalf menÂ" tioned, at which meeting the chairman declared the defendant to be the Treasurer, &c. ; and defendant did immediately thereupon in open Court " enter into a recognizance in the sum of, &c., and two sureties entered into " a...