High Court of Eire
| DOI | 10.1177/002201834000400208 |
| Published date | 01 April 1940 |
| Date | 01 April 1940 |
| Subject Matter | High Court of Eire |
High
Court
of
Eire
TWO
CASES OF
MAIMING
IT
is not often that it falls to the lot of a High Court to-day
to construe
the
word
'maiming',
but
in two recent
cases in the High Court of Eire the decision of the Court
depended on the construction
put
upon this word.
In
Foley
'lJ.
Dublin Corporation [1939],
I.R.,
'516, and Mooney o. Dublin
Corporation [1939], I.R., 520, the court applied (though
with different results) the definition of '
maiming'
adopted
by Palles C.B. in English v. Kerry County Council, 34
I.L.T.R.,
76, as,
"such
a
hurt
of any part of a man's body whereby
he is rendered less able, in fighting, either to defend himself
or to annoy his adversary."
In Mooney's case (supra), amember of the Civic Guard
arrested aperson soliciting for the purposes of prostitution.
After he had given his evidence,
but
while he was still in
the dock beside the accused, she slashed his face with a
razor-blade, causing him to be absent from duty for two
periods of two months each and causing permanent disfigure-
ment. He claimed compensation under the Grand
Jury
(Ireland) Act, 1836, on the ground that he had been maimed
on account of his exertions, as a police officer, to bring a
disturber of the peace to justice.
The
High Court, after
reviewing the authorities on the meaning of the term ' maim "
held that his claim failed, on the ground (inter alia) that he
had suffered no permanent disability, which was an essential
element in '
maiming'.
This
overrules clear dicta in several Irish cases: In re
Anthony's Presentment, 20
I.L.T.R.,
14;
McCabe o, Dublin
Corporation, 1
N.I.J.R.,
88;
Stafford o, Belfast Corporation,
3
N.I.J.R.,
225;
but
it follows Hawkins' Pleas
of
the Crown,
220
To continue reading
Request your trial