Walsh v Ryan

Judgment Date21 January 1895
Docket Number(1894. No. 745.)
Date21 January 1895
CourtChancery Division (Ireland)


(1894. No. 745.)











Practice — Trial by jury — Action in Chancery Division for injunction — Order XXXVI., Rule 3 — Transfer to Common Law Division.

An action was brought in the Chancery Division for an injunction to restrain certain nuisances and trespasses to the plaintiff's premises, situate in the City of Dublin, and the obstruction of a way or passage and the access of light and air thereto, and for damages. The defendant applied for an order for a trial with a jury, and that they should visit the premises; or, that the action should be transferred to a Common Law Division:—

Held, that under Order XXXVI., Rule 3, the Court had a discretion as to ordering a trial with a jury; that the onus lay on the person requiring a jury of establishing the propriety of having a trial by such a tribunal; that under the circumstances the defendant had not discharged that onus, and that a trial with a jury should not be ordered:—

Held also, that the action should not be transferred to a Common Law Division.

Differences between the Irish and English Rules as to right to trial by jury considered.

Motion by the defendant that the trial of the action be had by the Vice-Chancellor and a common jury of the city of Dublin, and that the said jury visit the premises alleged to be injured by the defendant; or that the action be transferred to a Common Law Division.

The action was brought for an injunction to restrain the defendant from (a) using or permitting to be used a certain urinal or water-closet on the defendant's premises in Merrion-row, Dublin, so as to be a nuisance to the plaintiff's adjoining premises, (b) discharging certain noxious matter from the said urinal or closet in and upon the plaintiff's said premises; (c) wrongfully obstructing a certain private way or passage at the rere of the premises known as the Shelbourne House, Merrion-row, and obstructing the access of light and air to and through the said passage; (d) trespassing on the plaintiff's premises and erecting a certain shed and ventilator on the plaintiffs wall; and for damages.

The statement of claim alleged that the defendant had erected a urinal and water-closet immediately adjoining the plaintiff's dining-room and so close to the side wall thereof that the water-closet could not be used without the pumping of the cistern being heard in the plaintiff's dining-room: the urinal and water-closet had been so constructed that noxious matter from the same permeated through the wall of the plaintiff's house partially destroying same, and rotted and destroyed the paper, and ran down on the inside of the basement wall of the house. There was a covered passage at the rere of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Ahktar Mansoor v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 4 October 2010
    ... ... ; Henry Denny & Sons (Ireland) Ltd v Minister for Social Welfare [1998] 1 IR 34 considered; Hall v Kennedy (Unrep, Morris J, 20/12/1993), Walsh v Ryan (Unrep, Lavan J, 12/2/1993), Bates v Minister for Justice [1998] 2 IR 81 , Kavanagh v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison (Unrep, Morris J, ... ...
  • Secretary of State for War v Studdert
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 17 June 1902
    ...Q. B. D. 183. Spratt's Patent v. WardELR 11 Ch. D. 240. The Temple BarELR 11 P. D. 6. Timson v. WilsonELR 38 Ch. D. 72. Walsh v. RyanIR [1895] 1 I. R. 504. Warner v. MurdochELR 4 Ch. D. 750. Wedderburn v. PickeringELR 13 Ch. D. 769. 240 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1902. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR v......
  • Secretary of State for War v Studdert
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 27 March 1901
    ...2 Ves. Jun. 317. Mayor of Salford v. LeverELR [1891] 1 Q. B. 168. Phosphate Sewage Company v. HartmontELR 5 Ch. D. 394. Walsh v. RyanIR [1895] 1 Ir. 504. 346 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1901. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR v. STUDDERT (1). (1901. No. 44.) Practice—Transfer of action—Action by princ......
  • Bank of Ireland v Rowan
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 20 February 1976
    ...get a reasonably clear outline of the case, referred me to rules 5 & 6 of Order 36 of the Superior Courts Rules and to Walsh v. Ryan (1895) 1 I.R.504 and Secretary of State for Ireland v. Studdart (1902) 1 I.R.240 and argued that it is a matter for my discretion whether I direct a trial wit......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT