166 / 262
the plaintiffs to June 22, and were duly answered on
July 4. One answer read that ejectment proceedings
were being taken against an obstructive tenant, who
had no interest in the premises. This tenant had
resided on the premises as a result of a complicated
mortgage suit decided years previously. When the con-
tract was signed in April, all the parties knew that
this difficult tenant was in possession of a house on the
property. The engrossment of the deed of conveyance
was sent on July 7, and the draft statutory declaration
that the premises were part of the Pembroke Estate
which would indemnify the purchaser against all
charges in the freehold title, was only sent on July 31.
In the result, time ceased to be of the essence o fthe
contract. There was some dispute as to the title to the
access of the property, but nevertheless on August 15,
the defendants agreed to close the sale. The final statu-
tory declaration was only sent on August 22, and on
September 4, the plaintiffs rescinded the contract be-
cause the sale had not been completed. The plaintiffs
now claim a declaration that this contract has been
validly rescinded, and the deposit forfeited : Yet, by
not producing the essential statutory declaration in
final draft until August 22, the plaintiffs could not
show title in accordance with the contract. It is not
possible to make time the essence of the contract, when
it is not already so, by merely serving a subsequent
notice to that effect. The notice given by the plaintiffs
on August 11 to compel the defendants to complete the
contract was completely invalid, as neither the defen-
dants nor the plaintiffs had been guilty of unreasonable
delay, and the plaintiffs had not shown proper title at
that date. Thus the attempt to regard the contract as
made on Sept. 4 was ineffective. Accordingly the plain-
tiff's claim for a declaration will be dismissed with costs,
and an order will be made for specific performance of
the contract of 20 April 1972. The defendants will pay
interest from 30 June 1972 to date of completion.
[Healy Ballsbridge Ltd., v. Alliance Property Cor-
poration Ltd.—Kenny J.—unreported—1 February
1973.]
Election for East Mayo Constituency in February 1973
held valid.
The Petitioner claims to have the election in the
constituency of East Mayo held on 28 February 1973
declared void, or in the alternative, for a complete re-
count of the ballot papers. He alleges that in many
respects the electoral law was not complied with. There
is no complaint against any candidate or his agent, or
against the returning officer and his staff, or against
the Gardai involved, nor that the ballot papers were
tampered with.
(1) The petitioner alleged that, when he was voting
in Ballyhaunis N.S., there was no proper place to mark
the ballot paper, and he had to mark his on a window
sill. It was held that the strict rule had not been com-
plied with, but that arrangements had been made for
the voters to cast their votes conveniently.
(2) It was alleged that at Ballina Courthouse there
were too few voting compartments—3 instead of 6. Held
that this did not inconvenience the poll nor detract
from the secrecy of the ballot.
(3) It was alleged that a boy of 12 had been
appointed as a polling clerk at Callow N.S., and a girl
of 15 had similarly been appointed at Culheens N.S.
In this matter the Returning Officer has an unfettered
discretion which should nevertheless be exercised re-
sponsibly. It was not responsible to appoint a boy of
12, and the girl of 15 should not have been appointed
without inquiry as to her maturity and competence.
(4) It was alleged that at the Polling Station in
the Bar Room at Ballina Courthouse the personation
agent of one of the candidates was allowed to carry
out the duties of Presiding Officer; there was no evi-
dence that these cards were obtained in any way
illegally.
(6) It was alleged that at Ballina N.S., someone
wearing a party emblem was allowed to enter the
polling station, to intercept voters and take their cards
and finally to give their numbers to the Presiding
Officers. There is evidence that this person did canvass
voters, but that, save on three occasions when he
accompanied illiterate voters, he did not enter the poll-
ing station. The petitioner queried the appointment of
presiding officers as well as of personation officers, and
this led to unpleasantness which was to be deprecated.
There was however no breach of any statutory pro-
vision relating to the conduct of the election.
(7) The Court is fully satisfied that, while the Count
for this Constituency was going on in Swinford Town
Hall, there were periods when the Deputy Returning
Officer was absent, but nevertheless the ballot papers
were properly guarded by the Gardai, and no one saw,
touched or interfered with them. The Returning Officer
should have placed all ballot papers and boxes under
his own seal, and it was unwise of him to have per-
mitted the agreed presence of representatives of candi-
dates.
(8) It was alleged that in a re-count, the inter-
mediate transfers were not checked. The Deputy
Returning Officer satisfied the Court that he had carried
out the re-count in accordance with precedent, and
that there had been a proper compliance with the
regulations. It was unfortunate however that the Deputy
Returning Officer had not carried out all the statutory
requirements. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.
[Re Election Petition for East Mayo Constituency—
Dillon-Leetch v. Calleary and others—High Court
(Butler and Gannon JJ)—unreported—Ballina Court-
house, 4 May 1973.]
Public have no right to attend local authority meetings.
The following judgment was delivered by Justice
Delap in January 1973.
Both Defendants were charged with (i) Forcible
Entry and (ii) Forcible Occupation of the Town Hall,
Dun Laoghaire, on 4 September 1972. Both Defendants
were members of a group calling itself The Dun
Laoghaire Housing Action Group and they entered the
Town Hall when a meeting of the Corporation was in
progress and they interrupted the deliberations of the
Councillors, distributed leaflets in the Council Chamber
and refused to leave when requested to do so by the
Cathaoirleach and later by Sergeant Mulqueen, Dun
Laoghaire.
*
At the hearing, one of the Defendants contended
that he entered the Town Hall in Dun Laoghaire
because he felt that as a citizen of Dun Laoghaire he
was entitled to attend any meeting of the Corporation
and he contended that the system of obtaining admis-
sion by way of invitation from a Councillor was not
democratic or in order. The matter is of considerable
• importance in this case because a Statutory Defence to
the offence of forcible entry of land or a vehicle is
provided in the Act itself which provides that a person
163