Walsh, Appellant; The Queen (Somerville), Respondent

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 22 February 1888
• Date: 22 February 1888
• Court: Exchequer Division (Ireland)

Ex. Div.

Before PALLES, C.B., and ANDREWS, J.

WALSH,

APPELLANT;

THE QUEEN (SOMERVILLE),

RESPONDENT

Nuth v. TamplinELR 8 Q. B. Div. 247, 253.

Ex part Walton 17 Ch. Div. 746.

Howard v. Bodington 2 Prob. Div. 203.

Dixon v. Caledonian & Glasgow & South-Western RailuayELR 5 App. Cas. 820.

Collins v. Welch 5 C. P. Div. 27.

Vaux v. VollansENR 4 B. & Ad. 525.

Doogan v. ColquhounUNK 20 L. R. Ir. 361.

Feuvre v. MillerENR 8 E. & B. 321.

Queen v. Inhabitants 11 A. & E. 73.

The Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner 2 DeG. F. & J. 502-8.

Howard v. BodingtonELR 2 P. D. 211.

Thorp v. Browne L. R. 2H. L. 220.

The King v. Inhabitants of GwenopENR 3 T. R. 133.

Williams v. Swansea Navigation CompanyELR L. R. 3 Ex. 158.

Moore v. SmithENR 1 E. & E. 597.

—— Case stated —; Costs.

-314 Ex. Div. 1888. WORTHING TON V. D. W. & W. RAILWAY Co. LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. their solicitor), and no rule as to the inspection of the said bundle of extracts from the minute-books of the proceedings of the said Board ; and it is further ordered that the costs of the motion on. both sides be costs in the action." Solicitors for the plaintiff D. si T. Fitzgerald. Solicitors for the defendant Company : G. Keogh Son. WALSH, APPELLANT ; THE QUEEN (SOMERVILLE), RESPONDENT (1). Criminal Law and Procedure Act, Ireland (50 c 51 Vict. c. 20), s. 7-Order suppressing association-Publication-Case stated-Costs. A prosecution cannot be sustained under section 7 of the Criminal Law and Procedure Act (Ireland), 1887, unless an Order of the Lord Lieutenant in Council has been published in the prescribed manner, suppressing the associaÂtion to which the offence relates. When, upon a case stated, a conviction under the section is reversed, the Divisional Court has jurisdiction to award costs to the appellant. CASE STATED for the opinion of the Division, pursuant to the 20 & 21 Vict. e. 43. It appeared from the case that on the 19th October, 1887, and the 23rd October, 1887, Edward Walsh, the appellant, appeared before the magistrates, upon a summons, charging him with having in a certain newspaper called The People, and purporting to bear date the 24th September, 1887, and which said newspaper was published and circulated in Wexford, being a proclaimed disÂtrict, unlawfully within the said proclaimed district, incited certain persons to take part in an unlawful assembly. The evidence in support of the charge consisted of a copy of the newspaper of the 24th September, a deposition of Constable Lalor, (1) Before PALLES, C.B., and ANDREWS, J. VOL. XXII.] Q. B. & EX. DIVISIONS. 315. and the Dublin Gazette, of 23rd July, 16th August, 19th August, Ex. Div. 30th August, 20th September, and 4th October, 1887 (1). 1888. No evidence except the notice in the Gazette of the 4th October, WALSH 1887, was given by the prosecutor of the publication of the Order THE C;UEEN• suppressing this association. No evidence was tendered on behalf of the appellant ; but his counsel argued (amongst other contentions), that under the CriÂminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, and the Rules made under the Act, it was requisite for the respondent to prove that the Order in Council of the 17th September, 1887, suppressing the Irish National League in certain districts had been published in the manner prescribed. The case stated that the magistrates were satisfied, and so found that the Order of the 17th September, 1887, was duly made (1) By sect. 12, sub-sect. 3 of the Act " the production of a copy of the Gazette . . . containing the publication of any proclamation, special proclamaÂtion, order, or notice under this Act shall be conclusive evidence of the conÂtents of such proclamation, ... order, or notice, and of the date thereof, and in the case of a proclamation that the district specified . . . is a proclaimed district within the meaning of proviÂsions . . . mentioned in the proclamaÂtion; and in the case of a proclamation, or a special proclamation, that such proclamation, or special proclamation, has been duly promulgated, and in the case of an order that it has been duly made." Rule 4 of the Rules made under the Act provides that public notice of an Order in Council, prohibiting and supÂpressing, pursuant to the 7th section of the Act, any association by special proclamation previously declared to be dangerous, " shall be published by the same being published in the DubÂlin Gazette, a printed_ copy thereof being posted at every police station orbarracks, and every place at which petty sessions are held, respectively, within the district specified in such order." On the 23rd July, 1887, it was, by proclamation, declared that the proÂvisions of the Act relating to proÂclaimed districts should be in force in the county of Wexford. Notice was given in the Gazette of the 16th AuÂgust that this proclamation had been duly promulgated. On the 19th AuÂgust the Irish National League was, by special proclamation under sect. 6, declared to be dangerous, and notice of the due promulgation of this proÂclamation was given in the Gazette of the 30th August, 1887. In the Gazette of the 20th September was published an Order in Council, prohibiting and suppressing within the barony of ShelÂburne, in the county of Wexford, the association named and described in the said special proclamation as the Irish National League, and in the Gazette of the 4th October, 1887, notice was given that this Order had been duly published in the manner prescribed. 316 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. Div. and published in the prescribed manner, and being satisfied on the 1888. evidence that the appellant had incited to take part in an unlawful WALSH assembly-to wit, a meeting of the suppressed branch of the Irish THE Qum National League-they convicted him and sentenced him to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour. Counsel on behalf of the appellant objected to the finding, on the ground that there was no evidence to support it. The questions for the determination of the Court were : 1. Was it necessary for the respondent to prove that the Order of the 17th September, 1887, had been published in the prescribed manner ? 2. Was there evidence of the publication of the said Order in the prescribed manner ? Healy (with him Adams), for the appellant : Sect. 7 of 50 & 51 Viet. c. 20, provides that " from and after the date of such special...