24 / 114
the Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
[Ju.\E, 1913
general rules for carrying into effect the
Labourers Acts, and, after consultation with
or notice of consultation sent to the President
of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland,
to make rules which, subject as
therein
mentioned, may fix the amount of any fees,
and may provide for the taxation and payment
of any costs to be received, allowed or paid
in relation to the confirmation by the Local
Government Board, and the carrying into
execution of improvement schemes.
In the
case of
The King
(Lady Mowbray and
Stourton) v. The Local Government Board,
Ireland,
the Court of Appeal decided, on this
point reversing the decision of the King's
Bench Division, that the Local Government
Board had power, under Sec. 31, of fixing the
fees payable to a vendor's Solicitor for the
costs of making out title to land compulsorily
taken for labourers' cottages, and for this
purpose to alter the scale fees under the
Solicitors Remuneration Act, 1881 ; but they
also decided that it was necessary for the
Local Government Board to make an order
for the purpose, and that they must permit
the vendor's Solicitor to appear on
the
taxation, and that they could not, without
making a general order, merely refer a bill of
costs to their own Solicitor for him to say
what was reasonable to be paid. Accordingly
the Labourers (Ireland) Order, 1909, was
made, which, among other things, provided a
scale of costs for owners and lessees, appointed
a taxing officer, and provided for a proper
taxation.
It further provided that, at the
option of the Solicitor acting on behalf of an
owner or lessee, the total fees payable for
deducing title to lands taken under the Acts
and completing
transfer
thereof
to
the
Council, might, without any taxation, be in
accordance with a graduated scale, com–
mencing at two guineas as a minimum.
I
was told that in a case which came before the
Lord Chief Baron (the name of which was
not mentioned), that learned Judge held that
a tenant from year to year is a " lessee," he
is in fact tenant for a term of years
(Wright
v.
Tracy,
I. R. 8, C. L. 478), and that,
consequently, he was not restricted to the
10/6 fee as a mere occupier, but was entitled
to be paid on the scale applicable to owners
and lessees. The Local Government Board
then issued another Order dated 13th Feb.,
1912, which re-enacted the provisions of the
rule of 1909 as regards the costs of owners
and lessees, but further provides that where
land is taken from an occupier who is neither
owner or lessee thereof, the fee payable by
the Council for all expense incurred in respect
of the employment of a Solicitor by him for
the purpose of deducing title to his occupa–
tion interest shall be the sum of 10/6 ;
and
it was further provided that " In the con–
struction and for the purpose of this rule,
the expression owner or lessee shall not
extend to or include :
(a)
any tenant of a holding subject to a
judicial rent fixed or agreed to under
the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, 1881, and
the Acts amending the same ;
(b)
any tenant holding under a tenancy
from year
to year or
any
lesser
tenancy ;
or,
(c)
any such tenant as is hereinbefore in
this clause mentioned who has entered
into an agreement for the purchase of
his holding under the Land Purchase
Acts, but in whom such holding is not
yet vested under the said Acts."
It will be observed that the 10/6 fee is,
by the express words of the rule, confined to
cases when title is deduced to an occupation
interest. Now, what is meant by a title to an
occupation interest as opposed to what, I
suppose, would be called a proprietary title,
I am wholly at a loss to understand. A
man's right to occupy depends upon his title
to the land, which may be an estate in fee-
simple or in tail, or an estate for life, or a
lease for lives or years, or a tenancy from
year to year ; but in any case it is the title
to the land which entitles the occupier to
occupy if he so chooses instead of letting to
a tenant.
In
MacLaughlin
v.
Limavady
R.D.C.
(43 I.L.T.R., 279) the late Recorder
of Londonderry, Judge Overend a most able
and experienced Judge said: "The rule
dealing with occupiers was only intended to
apply when a short abstract, consisting of a
copy of the Fair Rent Order, had to be
furnished, and does not apply to such a case
as the present, where title had to be deduced
from a previous owner and subsisting estates
dealt with." Possibly this may be what is
meant by a title to an occupation interest,
but, if so, it is not what was required in the
present case.
It must be remembered that