The Queen at the prosecution of Charles Sedley v Henry Lyons and Others, Commissioners for The Town and Harbour of Sligo

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 21 January 1869
• Date: 21 January 1869
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Q. Bench.

THE QUEEN AT THE PROSECUTION OF CHARLES SEDLEY

and

HENRY LYONS AND OTHERS, COMMISSIONERS FOR THE TOWN AND HARBOUR OF SLIGO.

Bower v. GriffithUNKIR I. R. 2 C. L. 546.

The Conservators of the River Tone v. Ash 10 B. & Cr. 349.

Bush v. BeavanENR 1 H. & C. 500; 32 L. J. Exch. 54.

Attorney-General v. EastlakeENR 11 Hare, 205.

Bright v. NorthENR 2 Phil. 216.

Regina v. The Town Council of Dublin 7 Ir. Jur. N. S. 317.

The Queen v. The Norfolk Commissioners of Sewers 15 Q. B. 549.

Bower v. GriffithUNKIR I. R. 2 C. L. 546.

Attorney-General v. AndrewsENR 2 Mac. & G. 225.

Sutton's HospitalUNK 10 Rep. 23.

Bogg v. PearseENRUNK 10 C. B. 534; 20 L. J. C. P. 99.

Addison v. The Mayor, & c., of PrestonENRUNK 12 C. B. 108; 21 L. J. C. P. 146.

Bolton v. The Guardians of the Mallow Union 8 Ir. C. L. R. App. 9.

Chambres v. JonesENR 5 Exch. 229; 19 L. J. Exch. 239.

Bush v. BeavanENR 1 H. & C. 500; 32 L. J. Exch. 54.

The Conservators of the River Tone v. Ash 10 B. & Cr. 349.

Colquhoun v. Nolan and Others, Town Commissioners of the City of CashelUNK 13 Ir. L. R. 248.

Mandamus Town Commissioners 43 Geo. 3, c. 1x. (loc. and pers.) 9 Vict. c. xxiv. (loc. and pers.) Applicability of rates to the payment of Costs incurred in opposing a Bill in Parliament.

484 THE IRISH REPORTS. R. Q. Bench. being so, the Appellants were justified in erecting them, and are 1869. entitled to judgment. REEVES V. ROBINSON. Attorneys for the Appellant : S. S. and B. Reeves and Sons. Attorney for the Respondent : Cullinan. THE QUEEN AT THE PROSECUTION OF CHARLES SEDLEY v. HENRY LYONS AND OTHERS, COMMISSIONERS FOR THE TOWN AND HARBOUR OF SLIGO. Mandamus-Town Commissioners-43 Geo. 3, c. lx. (loc. and pers.)-9 Vict. c. xxiv. (loc. and pers.)-Applicability of rates to the payment of Costs inÂÂcurred in opposing a Bill in Parliament. By a local Act, a body of Commissioners for the Town and Harbour of Sligo was constituted. By ss. 37 & 47, the Commissioners were empowered to take and hold land to them and their successors. By s. 12, they were empowered to sue in the name of their clerk. Section 132 specified the purposes to which the rates which the Commissioners were empowered by the Act to levy should be applied, and declared that they should be applied to " no other use, intent, or purpose whatsoever." The Commissioners employed a solicitor to oppose a bill in Parliament. The opposing a bill in Parliament was not one of the purÂÂposes specified in section 132. He now applied for a writ of mandamus to compel the Commissioners to pay his costs out of the rates. Held, that the writ should not issue, as he had a remedy by action either against the Commissioners as a body, or against those of them who had voted for the resolution directing him to take the proceedings. Bush v. Beavan (1 H. & C-500 ; 32 L. J. Exch. 54) followed.! MOTION to show cause against a conditional order for a writ of mandamus to the Defendants, being the Commissioners for the Town and Harbour, acting under the 9Yict. e. xxiv. (loc. and pers.) entitled, "An Act for the improving and maintaining the Harbour or Port of Sligo, in the countyof Sligo," and the 43 Geo. 3, c. lx. Om and pers.), commanding them, out of the rates levied, or to be levied under (1) Formal judgment, reversing the order of the Commissioners, was at the same time given in a case of Lord Annaly, App. ; Robinson, Resp., inwhich the facts were substantially the same as in that above reported, all parties agreeing that the cases were undisting uishabl e. VOL. III.] COMMON LAW SERIES. 485 the said Acts, to pay, or cause to be paid, to the prosecutor, Charles Q. Bench. Sedley, the several sums of 236 14s. 3d., and 240, remaining 1869. due and unpaid to him as and for the costs and expenses advanced, THE QUEEN laid out, sustained, and expended by him in pursuance of the orders, directions, and employment of the said Commissioners, acting in execution of the Acts aforesaid, and as their attorney and solicitor in and about and incident to the opposing of certain bills affecting the existence and duties of the Commissioners, and the interests of the inhabitants of the town, and of the persons trading to the port and harbour ; and if necessary in that behalf, that they should make, strike, assess, and levy a rate or tax in pursuance of the powers vested in them under the said Acts, and do all other acts necessary to be done for the due payment and. discharge to the prosecutor of the said several sums, and each of them, according to their authority, in that behalf. It appeared from the affidavits made for the purposes of the moÂÂtion that the prosecutor, who had acted as the attorney and solicitor of the Commissioners for the Town and Harbour of Sligo, was diÂÂrected by a resolution passed at a meeting of the Commissioners, held on the 10th of December, 1866, to oppose two bills then pending before Parliament known as " The Sligo Borough Improvement Bill," and " The Sligo Port and Harbour Bill." The resolution, as far as it related to the prosecutor, was in the following words :- "T hat our solicitor, Mr. Charles Sedley, take the necessary steps for opposing said bills on standing orders, and their future proÂÂgress, the expense of such litigation to be borne by the funds of the Town and Harbour of Sligo." This resolution was not carried without much opposition, and a written protest was handed in, signed by several of the Defendants. The opposition to the bill was successful, but the Committee of the House of Commons refused to give the Commissioners their costs of the opposition. Mr. Seclley's costs amounted to 236 14s. 3d., and the witnesses' expenses to 240. Mr. Sedley had. no salary from the Commissioners as their soÂÂlicitor, but was merely paid his costs in the ordinary manner. There was a considerable difference of opinion in the town as to the adÂÂvisability of opposing these bills. A new election of Commissioners took place, and a majority of the newly-elected Commissioners disapproved of the opposition to the bills, and refused to pay the THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. expenses of the opposition, including Mr. Sedley's costs, and the expenses of witnesses. A Mr. Bower, who was the engineer ernÂÂployed...