114 / 122
124
The Gazette ot the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
[APRIL, 1912
a short abstract of title, and Mr. Armour had,
through his Solicitor, delivered a statement
commencing from the year 1908, which the
Solicitors for the Council considered was
insufficient to enable them to advise whether
the purchase money and compensation could
safely be paid to Mr. Armour, or whether he
could give a statutory receipt by way of
conveyance of his interest in the land ;
and
therefore they considered it to be their duty
to lodge the money in Court pursuant to S. 11
(8) of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906. He
contended that no matter what fee should
be allowed for preparing the abstract it was
the duty of Mr. Armour to furnish a sufficient
abstract, and, as he had neglected to do this,
his conduct was unreasonable, and he should
not be allowed any costs in connection with
the petition. Mr. Greer stated that he con
sidered it his duty to inform the Court that
the Local Government Board apparently held
the view that S. 11 (1) of the Labourers Act,
1906, enabled the Council to accept a six
years' title, but on referring to this sub
section his Honour would see that it was
limited to the title of persons having power to
sell under the Land Purchase Acts, which
did not include tenants from year to year,
and therefore the Council was not relieved
from the duty of seeing that a proper title
was shown for at least twenty years. The
Local Government Board also contended that
by the operation of S. 21 (1) of the Labourers
Act, 1906, taken in connection with S. 29
(3) of the Local Registration of Title (Ireland)
Act, 1891, and S. 47 of that Act, it was only
necessary for the Council to have the docu
ment vesting the estate of the owner in fee
in the plot registered in the Local Registra
tion of Title Office, whereupon the certificate
of registration would be given free from all
rights and equities, including the tenancy
from year to year, so that it was unnecessary
to inquire into the title of the tenant, but
Mr. Greer contended that as the tenant's
title was required either to the land itself or
to the purchase money and compensation
mentioned in the award, it was the duty of
the .Council to see that proper title was
produced, and as this had not been done by
Mr. Armour the prayer of the petition should
be granted, but without costs.
His Honour Judge Orr, K.C., said Mr.
Greer had argued very well and very clearly.
He had only two things to consider—first,
whether Mr. Armour made out his title ; and
secondly, whether he should make the Rural
Council pay the costs. As regarded the
money, he thought title was sufficient. On
a former occasion he took a great deal of
trouble, and found that in the High Court
searches were never directed where the sum
lodged was under £100 ; but the money was
always paid to the party in possession pro
vided all parties who appeared entitled as
mortgagees or otherwise consented. There
was a good
prima facie
title here made. The
sole mortgagee consented, and so far as the
money in Court was concerned he would
direct that it should be paid out to Mr.
Armour. Then came the question of costs.
He certainly sympathised with the Local
Government Board to a considerable extent,
because they wanted to make this procedure
as cheap as possible in these small cases where
the quantity of land taken was always small
and the purchase money and compensation
as a rule trifling. But there is reason in
everything, and was it fair and reasonable to
make an order only allowing a fee of 10s. 6d.
for making out title in every case ?
In the
present case Mr. Armour was required to send
in his title, and he sent in a title beginning
on the 20th February, 1908, and said on
that date he purchased the farm from William
Campbell for the sum of £950. That was sent
to Mr. Greer, and he most properly refused
to accept it. As Solicitor for the Council he
was bound to look after their interests, and
he had to keep himself right as well. Mr.
Greer would have been a perfect fool if he
had accepted this title, and if he (the County
Court Judge) had been in his place he would
have asked for forty years' title instead of
twenty. What was the unfortunate Mr.
Armour to do then ?
He goes round all the
Solicitors in Ballymoney and says there is
10s. 6d. to make out a title, and not one of
them would take it.
He considered the
Solicitors perfectly right in refusing this fee,
and he was proud to think they had done so,
as it was a monstrous thing to ask a man who
had gone through a long expensive course of
education and was under a heavy professional
responsibility to take 10s. 6d. for making out
title extending over twenty years under the
English Real Property Law—a fee at which
a skilled artisan would turn up his nose. He