133 / 274
GAZETTE
At the meeting Tinelly having made frequent inter-
ruptions, called out 'liar' when a vote of thanks was
being passed, and having been suspended from the
Committee by unanimous motion, was called on by
the Chairman to quit the Council Chamber and
refused. He was thereupon removed by the three
appellants. It was contended on their behalf that their
action in ejecting Tinelly was justified because:—
(a) he was behaving in an abusive and violent manner
and refused to leave the Council Chamber when
requested to do so, so that it was necessary to
remove him to maintain order in the meeting, and
(b) in any event, the appellants acted in accordance
with the rules of the Standing Orders and if there-
under Marshall was entitled to order Tinelly to
be removed, he was entitled to effect the removal
AUGUST 1976
himself with the help of the other appellants.
On behalf of Tinelly it was contended that the
appellants had assaulted him without justification in
fact or in law. The Justices held that the appellants
were not entitled personally to eject Tinelly and were
consequently guilty of assault. Lord Hewart, C.J. said
it was quite clear that the appeals must be allowed.
When Marshall, acting in pursuance of the Resolution
carried by the Committee, ordered Tinelly to with-
draw, and Tinelly had refused to withdraw, the latter
became a mere trespasser. In these circumstances
Marshall and the other appellants were entitled to
do what they had done, and it was found as a fact that
what they had done was done as gently as the cir-
cumstances permitted. The appeal was allowed,
Humphreys and Du Parcq, JJ. agreed.
Part II will be published in the September 1976
Gazette.
Continued from p. 130
attention; it must have been chosen of set purpose,
because the grave subject-matter demanded that Ire-
land to-day should define her position in unequivocal
terms. Thus, for religion, for marriage, for the family
and the children, we have laid our own foundations.
Much of the resultant polity is both remote from British
precedent and alien to the English way of life, and,
when the powerful torch of transmarine legal authority
is flashed across our path to show us the way we should
go, that disconformitv may point decisively another
way."
"The cardinal position ascribed to the family by our
fundamental law is profoundly significant; the home
is the pivot of our plan of life. The confused philosophy
of law bequeathed to us by the nineteenth century is
superseded by articles which exalt the family by pro-
claiming and adopting in the text of the Constitution it-
self the Christian conception of the place of the family
in society and in the State; hence an ante-nuptial agree-
ment, made to be effective within the ambit of the
parental sphere and to reinforce in its vital religious
role that indispensable moral institution, that funda-
mental unit of society, in a State which honours and
respects religion, has a claim to the most serious con-
sideration in our Courts."
Despite the praise that he won as an advocate, he
was unfortunate in the sphere of politics. For as a result
of his resignation from the Provisional Government, he
was subjected to much criticism; and in the bitterness
engendered by the fighting in the Civil War the reasons
for his resignation carried little weight. Unhappily, part
of the political obloquy was carried over into the legal
world and echoes of the old controversies which still
linger on affected to a great extent the estimation in
which he was held as a jurist. It was alleged that he
was pedantic, impractical, and inclined to change well
settled law too much. This criticism must be taken with
a grain of salt; as, in a large measure, it was prompted
by the earlier political antagonism stemming from the
Civil War. As a Judge, he was vulnerable to imputa-
tions of that kind because it was his duty to insist on
compliance with the letter of the law; at the same time,
there was a considerable area of Irish jurisprudence
which needed bringing up to date, and the concomitant
changes inevitably were not always popular with every-
one.
With conviction it can be claimed that though it
may be too early yet to pronounce a definitive assess-
ment of the merits of Mr. Justice George Gavan Duffy
as an advocate and as a Judge, there is ample evidence
that he was an unusually skilful, and persuasive
advocate; and one of the most courteous, scholarly,
high minded and perceptive jurists who sat on the
Irish bench. Moreover, in years to come when political
prejudice has fully died out, his judgements will be
given the respect they deserve, and will then form a
noble and imperishable memorial to his attainments.
Valuation for compensation
is our business
Osborne King & Megran |
Dublin 760251
Cork 21371
Galway 65261
134