The Gazette 1911-12

[APRIL, 1912

The Gazette ot the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

124

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

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.