THE O'DONOGHIJEasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the report in the "Cork Examiner" of the 13th instant, of the sale at Killarney on the 12th instant of the interest of a tenant on the estate of Lord Kenmare, named James Flynn; and, if so, whether the sheriff acted legally in rejecting the higher and accepting the lower offer for the farm, even though the amount in notes was actually handed to him by the person who had made the higher offer; and, if it be lawful for the sheriff to distinguish at sales between offers made by emergency men and representatives of the Land League, or to show a preference to bidders in the actual employment of the landlord?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)In consequence of the Question, I have read in The Cork Examiner the report of the sale referred to. Of course, my hon. Friend knows that it is not any part of my duty to pronounce any opinion upon the course taken by sheriffs on such occasions; but I infer from the statements in the newspaper that in this case the sheriff regarded what is called "the higher offer" as merely illusory. So I infer, because I find it stated that the difference was only ls., one bid being £30 and the other £30 ls. In answer to the last part of the Question, I have to say that at a public auction no distinction should be made between real bidders, to whatever classes they may respectively belong. The highest bonâ fide bidder should be declared the purchaser.