51 / 114
NOVEMBER, 1910]
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
151
'
2. Clause (9) of Rule 55 of the Labourers
(Ireland) Order, 1906, as amended by the
Labourers (Ireland) Order, 1909, is hereby
revoked, and the following Clauses (9) and
(10) shall be inserted as so numbered in the
said Rule, and shall henceforth be read and
constructed as part of the said Rule :—
(9) Where
land
is
taken
from
an
occupier who is neither owner or lessee
thereof, the fee payable by the Council for
all expenses incurred in respect of the
employment of a Solicitor by him for the
purpose of deducing title to his occupation
interest shall be the sum of ten shillings
and sixpence.
(10) In the construction and for the
purposes of
this Rule,
the expressions
" 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) Act, 1881, and the
Acts amending the same ;
or
(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.
Given under Our Seal of Office this
Sixth day of October, in the Year
[L.S.]
of our Lord, One Thousand Nine
Hundred and Ten.
AUGUSTINE BIRRELL.
H. A. ROBINSON.
Recent Decisions affecting Solicitors.
(Notes of decisions, whether in reported or
unreported cases, of interest to Solicitors, are
invited from Members.)
COUNTY COURT.
(Before His HONOR JUDGE COOKE, K.G.)
Patrick Benar and H. T. Gallagher
v.
The
Stranorlar District Council.
October
26, 1910.—
Labourers (Ireland) Acts
and Orders—Cost of furnishing Title to
District
Council—Labourers
(Ireland)
Order,
1910,
not retrospective.
AT Lifford County Court, Patrick Benar and
H. T. Gallagher, Solicitor, Strabane, were
plaintiffs in a process brought against the
Stranorlar Rural District Council for £2 2s.
costs
in
one
of
several cases for
title
furnished under the Labourers Act.
The
claim was made under
the
Labourers
(Ireland) Order, 1909, and the defence set
up by Mr. James Boyle, solicitor for the
District Council, was that the claim did not
come within the scope of the Act, the order
under which it was made having been since
partially repealed by the Local Government
Board. The new Order of 1910 was retro
spective, Mr. Boyle argued, and, therefore,
Mr. Gallagher was only entitled to 10s. 6d.
for each of the several cases.
Judge Cooke said this matter had been
before him in a previous action. At that
time there was a Local Government Board
Order, dated July, 1909, in force, which in
effect stated that the Solicitor for the owner
or lessee or person, whose land had been taken
could take or claim without any taxation
the sum of
£2
2s.
in each case; but in
cases of persons other
than
the owner
or lessee, .a smaller fee was fixed, namely,
10s. 6d. The question then agitated was
whether the tenant from year to year was
to be considered a lessee, within the meaning
of that Order, or whether he was to be con
sidered simply an occupier other than the
owner or lessee. At that time he went very
fully into the code, and after pointing to the
kindred Acts upon which this code depended,
stated that, so far as he could gather from
the code as it was drafted, the distinction was
between tenant from year to year and owner,
or what was described as lessee. This came
before the Lord Chief Baron on appeal, and
he held that a tenant from year to year, who
had a fair rent fixed, was a lessee, because
there was a contract on the Court records,
which was the highest form of contract,
making him tenant by written order of the
Court,
and
that consequently a
tenant
holding in that way was a lessee, the definition
of lessee being according to Deasy's Act, a
person who held under written contract.
Therefore, his decision was reversed by the
Lord Chief Baron.
He
(Judge Cooke)
remembered that in the course of his remarks
on the case, he said that really the cases were
not of much importance, inasmuch as the
Local Government Board,
if they chose,
could publish a new Order any day, and so