« ZurückWeiter »
“the Act, and shall, so far as may be practicable and convenient, E. T. 1848.
Queen's Bench. “appoint such coroner to that district within which he shall have
In re “heretofore acted,” &c. Then the 7th section enacts :-“That from MAGEE. “and after the division of any county, riding or division into coro“ners' districts, upon the issuing of such writ, the sheriff of the “county wherein such district shall be situate shall hold a Court for “such election at the place fixed and determined for this purpose as “aforesaid, on some day to be by him appointed, which day shall not “ be less than seven days nor more than fourteen days after the “ receipt of the writ de coronatore eligendo,” &c. All the sections subsequent to the 6th section apply to coroners to be hereafter appointed, not to those previously acting for the county. The 8th section goes on :—“That at the election of a coroner for any such “district, the person so to be elected shall be chosen by the majority “of those persons residing within the district, who at the time of “such election shall be qualified to vote at the election of a member " or members to serve in Parliament for the county within which “such district shall be situate.” And the 16th section provides for the qualification of coroners : no person to be elected to the office who shall not, at the time of being so elected or chosen, be seised to and for his own use and benefit of some estate of inheritance of the clear annual value of £50, or of an estate of freehold for his own life, or for the life or lives of some other person or persons, either at law or in equity, of the clear yearly value of £100 over and above all charges and incumbrances which may affect the same, of or in lands situate within the county, county of a city, county of a town or borough, for which, or for any district of which, he shall be elected or chosen as aforesaid, or within the county next thereto adjoining, &c. Then the 18th section prescribes the mode of proceeding when the office is vacant, and the 21st section provides for the fees of the coroner. We contend that the word “ chosen” is explained by that 8th section, and that the words “elected" or “chosen” can only apply to future coroners, and that the word "appoint” in the 6th section refers to coroners previously acting. As to the construction of Acts of Parliament: Rex v. The Parish of St. Pancras (a); and in Green v. Wood (6), Lord Denman (a) 6 Ad. & Ell. 7.
(6) 7 Q. B. 185.
E. T. 1848. says:—“We are bound to give to the words of the Legislature all Queen's Bench.
meca possible meaning which is consistent with the clear language used;" In re MAGEE. so in Samuel v. Nettleship (a), Patteson, J., says:—“I cannot spe
“culate as to the intention of the Legislature; the words of the " section appear to me quite clear.” The Court will not supply a casus omissus in the statute: Dwarris on Statutes, p. 599.
S. B. Miller and Holmes, contra, on behalf of the Grand Jury.
The Act is entitled “An Act to amend the Laws relating to the office of Coroner, and the Expenses of Inquests in Ireland;" and coupling the heading with the future provisions, as to payments of coroners, gives an index to the Act. From the 7th to the 18th section the Act is conversant with cases of election of coroners on a vacancy; and then the 19th section provides, “ That from and after “the passing of this Act, no person who shall hold the office of “coroner shall be appointed or shall act by himself or by his partner, “ directly or indirectly, as Sub-sheriff in any county, city, town or “borough ;” and the 21st section enacts, “That where any county “shall have been divided into districts under the authority of this “Act, every person elected or chosen to serve the office of coroner “in any such district in Ireland shall reside within the district to “or for which he shall be elected or chosen coroner ; and in case “any such coroner shall fail or neglect to reside within his district, “ he shall forfeit and lose all right and claim to the fees and emolu“ments hereinafter provided for the payment of coroners, so long as “he shall so fail and neglect to reside within the same,” &c. The coroners rely on the words “elected and chosen;" but if statutes are to be construed grammatically, the word "chosen” would include “appointed.” The 24th section provides, “That every coroner “by or before whom any inquest post mortem shall be taken shall “make an abstract of the inquisition and finding of the jury; and “shall state in such abstract the names of the jurors in any such “inquest, and the names of all the witnesses who shall have been “examined at the same; and shall annex thereto an account of all “sums of money paid or advanced by him as hereinafter mentioned,
“ for or on account of any such inquest, or to or for or on account E. T. 1848.
, Queen's Bench. “of any witness or witnesses who shall have attended the same; and the
In re “ also an account of the number of miles which he shall have been
MAGEE. “compelled to travel from his usual place of residence to take such “inquest,” &c. The 25th section is to the effect that the Grand Jury of any county, &c., may present for the payment of the coroner thirty shillings for each inquest ; such payments not to exceed £50 at any one Assizes, and six pence per mile for travelling expenses ; and when more than one inquest on the same day, six pence per mile only for each additional mile the coroner may travel. The object of the statute is to limit the mileage expenses; and if three coroners live at extreme ends of the county, and thus include extensive mileage, its object would be frustrated; it was to diminish the whole expense of inquests and abridge the costs of the county. The Grand Jury have adopted the proper view of the statute, and therefore rejecting the presentment was a correct course.
The mistake arises from supposing that Mr. Magee comes within the provisions of the statute requiring residence; he having been appointed in 1838, this necessity was not imposed on him of residing in the district. Previous to the statute the coroners were elected by the freeholders of the county; then it was convenient to divide the county into districts, and the coroner was therefore under the new Act to be elected by the freeholders of the district, but still was to be considered coroner for the county at large. “Election” and “choosing” are contradistinguished from “appointed,” and Magee holds his appointment from the freeholders.—[CRAMPTON, J. What does the 17th section mean? “ That if it shall appear to “any two or more Justices of the Peace for any county, riding or "division, or for any county of a city, county of a town or borough, “for which, or for any district of which, any coroner shall be elected “or chosen under the provisions of this Act,” &c.]–He could not be elected for a county, but for a particular district, and a qualification being necessary under the old and new law, the Legislature have used words comprehending both classes. He was elected and chosen
E.T; 1848. for the whole county, but not appointed for the whole county
[MOORE, J. There must have been a choice before the old coroner In re
was appointed to a district.—PERRIN, J. Suppose four coroners for a county and four districts made, and the Grand Jury appointed one to each district, are they not to elect ?-BLACKBURNE, C. J. Suppose a difference in the Grand Jury, are they not to appoint by electing ?]
BLACKBURNE, C. J.
The general object of this statute is a purpose of convenience and economy; to make local officers of the coroners, and to afford no pretence for expensive travelling charges. The coroners thereafter to be elected and appointed were to be so for particular districts, and to reside in those districts ; and for the existing coroners, it is equally plain from the statute they were to be localised as well as the others. The Grand Jury were to select from a number, and appoint ; so that it is clear some were to be selected by election, some by appointment. The enactment, as to residence, is in the 21st section : “And be it enacted that, when any county shall have been “ divided into districts under the authority of this Act, every person “ elected or chosen to serve the office of coroner of any such district “ in Ireland shall reside within the district to or for which he shall “ be elected or chosen coroner,” &c.
This must include a coroner appointed by the Grand Jury; and the person claiming to be a local officer must be appointed in one way or the other, the section therefore must comprise those who are localised by the act of the Grand Jury. The same question arose as to the coroner of Galway, and Lefroy, B., refused to fiat the presentment on a similar ground to that on which we rest our judgment.
H. T. 1848. Queen's Bench.
Doe, d. THE RIGHT HON. GEORGE HAMILTON
MARQUIS OF DONEGAL,
1847. RIGHT. HON. HENRY SPENCER BARON
April 26, 27. TEMPLEMORE.
May 1, 2.
Jan. 20, 24, 27. EJECTMENT on the title, to recover possession of “All that the In an eject
ment on the “quays, commonly called Batt's and Gregg's quays, with the fore
title to recover “shore or unreclaimed mud banks of the river Lagan in front certain quaya,
with the fore“thereof, together with a proportion of the back stream passing “through the same; and also all that portion of the ground and
bank of the “soil of the river Lagan immediately adjoining the same, extend
ning between “ing from the long bridge and the approach thereto from the county the counties
of Antrim and “of Down to the centre of the channel of the river Lagan, opposite Down, the
plaintiff gave “Dargan's Island, in the county of Antrim ; all which said lands in evidence a
patent of 1620, “ and premises are situate, lying and being in the county of Down.” granting to A.
C. " the fishThere was but one demise in the ejectment, laid on the 2nd of ings and fish
ing places of what kind soever of all the river L., and the ground and soil of all the river;" and as an act of ownership, a lease of 1793 of a piece of strand on the east side of the river L., being part of the ground and soil of the said river. On the part of the defendant a patent of 1605 was given in evidence, granting to J. H. “all those regions, countries or territories of the Upper Clandeboye, in the county of Down," of which N. N. was possessed ; and one of the boundaries of those regions was the river L., therein described as having its course into the bay of Knockfergus, and running between the territories aforesaid for eight miles from the ford or passage of Belfast. Held, that leases of portions of strand on the Down side of the river, granted subsequent to 1620, and receipts of rent thereunder, and permission by the defendant and his ancestors to take gravel off the strand, were inadmissible evidence as affording a general exposition of the patent of 1605, and as auxiliary to the title, for which the defendant adduced the patent.—[PERRIN, J., dissentiente.]
The case having again gone to trial, the same evidence was again given on both sides, with some additional evidence of acts of ownership; and the issue left to the jury being, whether the plaintiff had title to the premises in question as being those granted by the patent of 1620, the Judge told the jury if they were not part of the river L., the plaintiff could have no title; but that according to his conception of the evidence, and of the weight of evidence, it was in favour of the plaintiff's claim.
Held, a right direction, the question being a jury question, and that as evidence on both sides was given of acts of ownership, on which evidence the verdict was founded, such verdict could not be set aside.
Held also, that evidence of acts of ownership by the defendant was admissible with a view to a distinct issue, viz., that supposing the bed and soil of the river to include the locus in quo, the jury ought, from the facts and documents relied on by the defendant, presume a grant of the premises from the Crown before 1620.